Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS PROTOCOL.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the six States that have ratified the gas protocol; and whether His Majesty's Government are taking any steps to inquire if the other signatories are prepared to ratify?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The gas protocol has been ratified by Austria, France, subject to reservations, Italy, Liberia, Russia, subject to reservations, and Venezuela. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that we should endeavour to obtain the ratification of the gas protocol?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I think that negotiations on that subject should come rather from the Secretary-General of the League and be approved by the Council, and not from this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA, (BRITISH SEAMAN'S ARREST).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received the report of His Majesty's Consul-General at
Loanda regarding the ease of Mr. A. J. Brewer, second officer of the Clan Line, s.s. "Clan Lamont" who, after arrest on the charge of theft of £1 was imprisoned for nine months, while awaiting trial in Portuguese West Africa, and was then condemned to 360 days' imprisonment and £18 fine or another 90 days' imprisonment; and, if so, what action his Department intends to take in the matter.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The report has not yet arrived.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman know when the report may arrive? We have been waiting for it a long time.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, communications with those parts take a long time. I think, if my memory serves me right, the report left Loanda on 30th November, but I can hardly say when it will reach us.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was he not due for release on 12th December?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the provisional agreement come to by His Majesty's Government as to the reckoning of the French reserves for disarmament purposes is now binding upon this country in spite of the fact that the concurrent part of the agreement concerning naval strength has been abandoned?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the right hon. and gallant Member to the full statement made by the Prime Minister in this House on the 13th November.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As that full statement has been misunderstood in France, could we not have it confirmed that, as far as our pledge to France is concerned, we would not consider those reserves? Are we to assume that that pledge is at an end?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that it is quite unnecessary for me to presume to confirm what the Prime Minister has already stated or to add anything to the statement which he made.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman make that statement in view of the fact that the French Government have since misinterpreted it?

Oral Answers to Questions — RHINELAND (GENEVA AGREEMENT AND LUGANO CONVERSATIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the German Government have refused to consider any kind of control in the Rhineland after 1935, he will say whether this refusal, or the French demand for such control, has the support of His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the right hon. and gallant Member to the terms of the third section of the communiqué issued to the Press at Geneva on the 16th September last, which stated that an agreement had been reached between the representatives of Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Japan regarding the acceptance of the principle of the constitution of a Commission of Verification of Conciliation, the composition, operation, object and duration of which would form the subject of negotiations between the Governments concerned; and to the terms of the communiqué issued to the Press at Lugano on the 15th December whereby His Majesty's Government and the Governments of France and Germany declared their faithful attachment to the policy of conciliation and rapprochement and their intention to continue in the spirit of that policy the negotiations begun in virtue of the Geneva agreement of the 16th September. I would especially direct attention to the last paragraph of the Lugano communiqué which reads as follows:
We are determined to do everything in our power to arrive as soon as possible at a final settlement of the difficulties arising out of the War, and thus assure upon the basis of mutual confidence the happy development of relations between our respective countries.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That answer is long, but it is not directed to my question. In these negotiations, which are
now coming on in connection with the duration of this Committee of Control, are we standing out for the French proposition that it shall continue after 1935 or for the German proposition that it shall close in 1935, or, alternatively, have we not made up our minds on the question at all?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is another question relating to the Lugano conversations on the Paper to which I shall give a reply in a few moments. When I have given that reply, I think I shall have said all that can be usefully or properly said at present.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to make a statement about his conversations at Lugano, especially with regard to reparations and the evacuation of the Rhineland?

Mr. THURTLE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, as a, result of his conversations at Lugano, he has any fresh statement to make regarding the British attitude towards the evacuation of the Rhineland?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have little to add to the communique issued at Lugano by Monsieur Briand, Dr. Stresemann and myself. This was the first occasion on which we had met since March. It afforded us an opportunity for the removal of some misconception and for a very friendly interchange of views such as has become customary whenever we meet. No new decisions were either taken or sought. The reparations question is being dealt with through the ordinary channels, and we did not attempt to duplicate the negotiations on that subject, which centre in Paris. We are agreed that the first thing to do is to secure the appointment of the Committee of Experts, and we hope that they may get to work very early in the new year. Our discussion of the other problems dealt with in the resolution come to by the six Powers at Geneva last September was of a purely exploratory and preparatory character, but I derived from it the impression that circumstances are favourable for a solution if fresh polemics can be avoided while the experts are performing their task. That is the answer to which I
alluded a moment ago, and it says all that I think it is in the public interests and in the interests of peace to say at the present time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, first, whether any definite progress has been made towards obtaining the evacuation of the Rhineland, and, secondly, whether it is the fact that the question of evacuation is now being linked up with what is known as the Polish Lugano?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said already that in the answer which I have given I have said all that it is necessary and advisable in the public interests of this country and in the interests of peace to say at the present time, and I must respectfully decline to say anything further.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be in the public interests—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already answered.

Mr. THURTLE: May we not put supplementary questions to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has no further information to give, and that he can snake no further statement.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: is the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to be in a position in this House that he refuses information on questions legitimately put to him by hon. Members? I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that it is in the public interests that he should change his policy or that we should change his Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: A Minister can give as much or as little information as he pleases. I cannot extract information from him.

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask whether in the course of his conversation at Lugano the right hon. Gentleman learned—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have come to an end of that question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it possible that we, who love our country, can sit still and see men being retained in the Rhineland? How can it
be possible to expect that the Germans will remain at peace, so long as there are British troops in the Rhineland, when we promised—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is arguing. That is not a point of Order.

Mr. THURTLE: May I submit that I put upon the Order Paper a question to the Foreign Secretary, and I was not allowed to put even one supplementary question in respect of it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman answered the question of the hon. Member which is on the Order Paper.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He did not.

Mr. THURTLE: On that point. Surely it is traditional in this House that when an hon. Member puts a question upon the Order Paper, if the official reply is not satisfactory, he can put a supplementary question.

Mr. SPEAKER: As to the putting of supplementary questions, they certainly have not been curtailed in any way, but we must get on with the questions on the Paper.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. I should like your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether to-morrow, on the Debate on the Adjournment, we shall be entitled to put questions to the Foreign Secretary which we are not allowed, apparently, to put at Question Time to-day. Can I have an answer?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I make an appeal to the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. Very Well!

Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. Is it not the custom and practice of this House that, while hon. Members are invariably allowed to rise and to put questions to a Minister, the Minister can refuse to reply to a question if it is against the public interests?

Mr. SPEAKER: That certainly is the case. I have said already that the Minister can say as little or as much as he pleases.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Minister may refuse to answer questions, I agree, but that does not prevent hon. Members from being permitted to ask questions. How about to-morrow?

Mr. SPEAKER: Strictly speaking, the Rule with regard to supplementary questions is that they must be put in order to elucidate the reply that has been given. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he has no further reply to give, then there is nothing more to elucidate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: There can be no further point of Order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. It is evident that the House, Liberal and Labour Members, are not satisfied with the treatment which they are getting from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Is there no way in which we can raise this matter in order that we may get right with the right hon. Gentleman? This cannot go on. He cannot continue to treat us in this manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] I will not sit down.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Will it be permissible to put these questions to the right hon. Gentleman on the Adjournment to-morrow?

Mr. SPEAKER: All matters of administration can be discussed on the Adjournment, but I would not like to say what will be in order until the actual question is before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH SEAMAN'S ARREST).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he received from the British Consul-General at Washington a Report of the case of Mr. A. Donaldson, fireman on s.s. "Plawsworth," who went ashore without a passport while his vessel was unloading at Galveston, Texas, in September, 1927, and w as kept in the country gaol without a trial for 12 months, and was subsequently released without explanation and without trial, having to work his way hack to Tilbury; and what action he has taken in the matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The facts of this case were only brought to my notice yesterday evening by Mr. Donaldson himself. His Majesty's Ambassador at
Washington will at once be instructed to institute inquiries and to make such representations as may seem called for to the United States Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.

Mr. TAYLOR: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the principle contained in the declaration of recognition of claims in the last part of the trade agreement of 1921 between Great Britain and Russia is regarded by His Majesty's Government as a satisfactory basis for the reopening of negotiations between Great Britain and Russia, so far as the question of debts and compensation to British nationals are concerned?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, but only so far as debts and compensation are concerned. The declaration attached to the 1921 treaty does not affect the situation as regards the propaganda conducted by the Soviet Government against this country.

Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the only difficulty to the reopening of negotiations is the question of propaganda now?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I doubt it. Until propaganda and action hostile to the British Empire has ceased, His Majesty's Government cannot reopen negotiations.

Mr. TAYLOR: Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman refers to propaganda in this country or to propaganda in other parts of the world?

HON. MEMBERS: The Empire!

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I refer to both.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information which will go to show that this propaganda has not ceased at the moment?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the pre-War years even Tsarist Russia conducted propaganda in Afghanistan?

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN (BRITISH NATIONALS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information with regard to the position in Afghanistan and the safety of British subjects in Kabul?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Fighting appears to have broken out again at Jalalabad, but I have no precise information. As regards Kabul, I have received a report that tribesmen led by a notorious brigand, Bacha Saqao, attacked on the west of the city on 14th-15th December, and captured two forts. I have no exact information as to developments since that date, as the British Legation which lies outside the city, has apparently been unable to use the wireless station, which lies near the Palace in the centre of the city. From the reports of an aeroplane which flew yesterday from Kohat to Kabul in order to establish communication with His Majesty's Legation, and from other indications, it appears that the aerodrome and the neighbourhood of the Palace are still in possession of loyal forces.
Plans were worked out some time ago by the Government of India for the withdrawal of women and children by aeroplane in case of need. The aeroplane mentioned above, which was despatched on the cessation of messages from His Majesty's Minister, received a message by signal to the effect that all in the Legation were well. The leaders of the tribesmen assured His Majesty's Minister on December 14th, that they had no hostile intention towards the Legation, but the Government of India will, of course, take all possible steps to ensure the safety of British nationals.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUMANIA (GOVERNMENT ORDERS).

Mr. DALTON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the present Rumanian Government has offered to distribute its foreign orders for engineering products and other materials in proportion to the participation by foreign countries in the proposed new Rumanian loan, any steps
are being taken to secure a fair share of these orders for this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Government have no precise knowledge as to the present state of the Rumanian loan negotiations. They are, however, fully alive to the desirability of British industries receiving a share of any orders for railway and other materials proportional to the amount of the London issue, in the event of the flotation of a portion of any loan on the London market.

Mr. DALTON: Are there any communications passing with our representative at Bucharest?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. DALTON: Will the hon. Member find out, as this is a most urgent matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CONTRACTS (BABCOCK, WILCOX AND COMPANY).

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the British firm of Babcock, Wilcox and Company, who are on the Admiralty list of contractors, have been found guilty of a charge of bribery and corruption by a court in Sydney, New South Wales; and whether he is prepared to remove the firm of Babcock, Wilcox and Company from the Admiralty list?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the public Press from time to time on this subject. In the absence of full details, and having regard to the fact that the firm's counsel is reported to have applied for a stay of proceedings, it would be premature for me to take any action as regards the firm's eligibility to tender for Admiralty contracts.

Mr. HARDIE: Is there any doubt as to the money passing between the two, and will that in any way be affected by an appeal?

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that Messrs. Babcock, Wilcox and Company have made a public statement that they had no knowledge whatever of this transaction, which took place in Australia?

Mr. RADFORD: Is it not a fact that Messrs. Babcock, Wilcox and Company's quotation was the lowest one for this particular job, and so this was really more in the nature of blackmail on the part of the officials concerned than bribery and corruption on the part of the company?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am not in a position to reply to my hon. Friend who spoke last. In regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) said, this incident occurred 2½ years ago. My reply to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) is that it would be obviously impossible for us to come to a decision while the matter is sub judice.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Before the Parliamentary Secretary comes to any decision to strike this firm off, will he consider the point that, if he does so, he will not punish the firm but the workmen on the Clyde?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Everything will be taken into consideration.

ALLOTMENTS (MAINTENANCE ORDERS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that under Section 98a (2) of the Naval Discipline Act, which provides that 14s. a week is the maximum allotment that can be compulsorily deducted from a man's pay, and that where a wife obtains a Magistrate's order for maintenance against her husband for more than 14s. a week a husband can claim protection under the Naval Discipline Act and escape enforcement of the order as made in the civil Courts, he will take steps to remove this anomaly?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The sum mentioned is the maximum that can be compulsorily stopped from the pay of a naval rating below the rating of petty officer. It is under consideration at the present time to raise the rates which may be thus stopped for each grade of naval rating, but any change will require legislation.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the Board of Admiralty consider the abolition of the present system under which a woman may be deserted by her husband, and, just because he is in the Navy, he can refuse to maintain her on the scale fixed by the magistrate who inquires into the justice of the case?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have told the hon. Member that the whole question is under consideration.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider abolishing it altogether?

REGULATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any alterations have been made to Article 1600, King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, 1926; and, if so, will he state the nature of these alterations and the date when made?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

THORNE AND HATFIELD COLLIERIES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour when last the officials at the Thorne or Hatfield collieries applied to the Employment Exchange at Doncaster or elsewhere for skilled mine workers; how many were sent; and how many were found employment?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): Only one vacancy for a skilled miner has recently been notified by these collieries to the Doncaster Employment Exchange, but I understand that a considerable number of men from other districts have offered themselves direct to collieries in this district and have secured work.

Mr. W. THORNE: I take it that, although a man of the same name is mentioned in the question, the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) has no interest in this colliery?

DONCASTER AND DISTRICT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons
on the live register at Stainforth, near Doncaster, on the last date for which figures are available?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is not a local office of the Ministry of Labour at Stainforth and separate figures of the numbers unemployed in that area are therefore not available.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are more than 300 miners unemployed in this district and that men are losing their benefit in various parts of Durham because they refuse to accept employment in this area?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That question does not immediately arise out of the question on the Paper. If the hon. Member has any information on that particular matter, perhaps he will send it to me.

Mr. PALING: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any miners have been found work in Doncaster and district under the transference board scheme; and, if so, how many?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Mr. PALING: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered at the Doncaster Employment Exchange during each of the last six months?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Numbers of Persons on the Live Registers of the Doncaster Employment Exchange.


Date.
Wholly Unemployed.
Temporarily Stopped.
Total.


25th June
2,012
1,175
3,187


30th July
2,001
10,855
12,856


27th August
2,239
5,689
7,928


24th September
2,233
160
2,393


29th October
2,249
13,276
15,525


26th November
2,276
6,153
8,429


10th December
2,275
1,027
3,302

TRAINING CENTRES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to give women training in Glasgow and also the rest of Scotland, and the same facts as regards men and the numbers affected?

Mr. SHINWELL: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour how many training centres exist in Scotland to which adult unemployed can be sent; how many such persons are undergoing training; and for what purpose?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Home training centres accommodating 155 women and girls at a time have been established at Glasgow, Cowdenbeath, Hamilton, Motherwell, Shotts, and Wishaw, and arrangements are being made to provide a further 205 training places. 164 men are now in training at the Springburn Training Centre for home employment. At the Carstairs Centre, which will be ready early in the new year, accommodation will be provided for 120 intending oversea settlers and 30 others.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM.

Mr. SHINWELL: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make an explanatory statement as to the changes, if any, which take effect from the issue of the new regulations, Unemployment Insurance (Associations), laid on 3rd December?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sending to the hon. Member a copy of an explanatory memorandum which has been issued to all the associations which, so far as is known, propose to have arrangements for the administration of State benefit, in operation from 1st January onwards.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: Can that information be generally supplied?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not information which it is necessary to circulate to all hon. Members, but, if any hon. Member wishes to have it, I shall be glad to provide it.

MINERS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners registered as unemployed in the first week of each month since October, 1926?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics of unemployment in particular industries are only available in respect of a date towards the end of each month. I

NUMBER OF INSURED PERSONS in Great Britain classified as belonging to the coal mining industry recorded as unemployed.


Date.
Number.


Wholly Unemployed.
Temporarily Stopped.
Total.


1926.








25th October*
…
…
…
106,037
—
106,037


22nd November*
…
…
…
105,328
—
105,328


20th December*
…
…
…
124,838
—
124,838


1927.








24th January
…
…
…
146,613
53,863
200,476


21st February
…
…
…
134,528
63,211
197,739


21st March
…
…
…
121,385
84,366
205,751


25th April
…
…
…
114,066
104,374
218,440


23rd May
…
…
…
111,131
100,270
211,401


20th June
…
…
…
119,070
114,221
233,291


25th July
…
…
…
132,460
125,743
258,203


22nd August
…
…
…
136,510
108,213
244,723


26th September
…
…
…
131,256
97,265
228,521


24th October
…
…
…
133,912
89,779
223,691


21st November
…
…
…
139,188
82,514
221,702


19th December
…
…
…
142,096
65,100
207,196


1928.








23rd January
…
…
…
138,538
72,645
211,183


20th February
…
…
…
144,449
70,993
215,442


26th March
…
…
…
148,023
52,009
200,032


23rd April
…
…
…
159,597
49,294
208,891


21st May
…
…
…
161,300
84,290
245,590


25th June
…
…
…
168,966
130,483
299,449


23rd July
…
…
…
179,386
145,546
324,932


20th August
…
…
…
180,488
115,992
296,480


24th September
…
…
…
178,699
72,381
251,080


22nd October
…
…
…
173,774
106,236
280,010


26th November
…
…
…
176,947
105,346
282,293


* The figures are exclusive of persons who were disqualified for benefit by reason of the dispute which commenced on 1st May, 1926.

Dr. J. H. WILLIAMS: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that mineowners are imposing, and seeking further to impose, reductions of district wage rates, in some cases 20 per cent., below the rates agreed upon at the beginning of this year; and if he will take steps to see that miners who refuse to accept the reduced rates and who are consequently thrown out of work are not refused unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The matters raised in the first part of the

will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such figures as are available.

Following is the statement:

question are for my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines, and perhaps the hon. Member will address a question accordingly. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member will be aware that the question of allowing or disallowing unemployment benefit is a matter not for me but for the statutory authorities.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Was it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer this question by consulting the Mines Department, as this is the last
day for questions before the House rises? With regard to the second part of his answer, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that large numbers of miners have been deprived of their unemployment benefit because they refuse to accept lower rates of wages than the agreed rates set down in the wages agreements?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As regards the first supplementary question, I communicated with the Mines Department to see whether I could get the answer. I understood that the Secretary for Mines did not recognise any reduction such as was stated in the question, and that, therefore, if I were to attempt to give an answer it might mean going into details which were not in my possession. As to the second question, I am unaware of the facts mentioned, and, in any case, they do not come within my jurisdiction.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Are we to understand that a man is regarded as not "genuinely seeking work" if he refuses to accept a starvation wage?

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to assist me in making progress with the questions on the Paper.

BENEFIT.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that men and women who have no dependants are questioned in detail regarding their family income; that information is in many cases sent to the Court of Referees; if this information is taken into account by the chief insurance officer when deciding cases; and if he will take steps to have this practice discontinued?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I told the hon. Member in reply to a supplementary question last week, the amount of the family income may be a material factor in certain cases quite apart from the question of dependant's benefit and for that reason I cannot have the practice discontinued.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where he gets his authority for his action? Under what authority does the right hon. Gentleman's Department question a man about his family income?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The interviewing officer on behalf of the chief insurance officer has to satisfy himself, so far as is possible, whether the conditions for benefit are observed, and it is for that purpose that he has the right to put these questions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Under what authority does he get the right to challenge a man's income other than his own? From where does he derive his authority?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: From the Unemployment Insurance Acts of 1920 to 1927.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last Act passed deliberately excluded inquiry into family income, and will he state in what part of any of the Acts he has authority to challenge a man's private affairs?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will put down a further question on the Paper, I shall be glad to give him an answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is not the case that he is acting quite illegally and contrary to the Act?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir, I am not.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of claims for unemployment benefit in Glasgow during the past year and the number of refusals, and the figures for last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such particulars as I can, as soon as they have been tabulated.

Mr. MARCH: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour why Mr. Henry Cruskall, of 92, High Street, Poplar, was given Form U 188 from the Exchange far training at the British Legion school at Peckham for taximeter-cab driving and was paid unemployment benefit for about four weeks, and then was stopped and had to go before the Court of Referees, who have informed him that he is only an apprentice and not entitled to benefit, and yet a number of others there who signed as he did are receiving benefit;
and, seeing that he has been following up the training for about 12 weeks with no pay, can he say what can be done for this man?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiry made into this case, and I will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

STATISTICS.

Mr. HANNON: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of unemployment in Great Britain as at the end of November of the present year, and give at the same time the corresponding percentages for France, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Belgium?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 26th November, the percentages unemployed among workpeople insured against unemployment were 12.1 in Great Britain and 12.2 in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Owing to differences in the bases of the unemployment statistics for overseas countries, I am unable to give corresponding figures for the continental countries specified, but I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the December issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," published to-day, on pages 461 and 462 of which the latest statistics regarding employment and unemployment in these and other overseas countries are summarised.

Mr. HANNON: Would my right hon. Friend say whether it is not due to the fiscal policy of those countries that there is a much lower percentage of unemployment there than there is in this country?

Mr. T. SHAW: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the unemployment is a certain percentage, does he not mean that the registered unemployment is that percentage? He does not refer to the actual unemployment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With regard to the first supplementary question, that is a matter of opinion and argument. My own opinion is that fiscal policy has a good deal to do with it. In reply to the second supplementary question, I can never pretend that the figure I give includes every single person who is unemployed, but it does give an increasingly accurate and comprehensive figure of unemployment, and has done for the last few years.

INSURANCE (ADMINISTRATION COST).

Mr. CHARLETON: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour the cost of administration of the unemployment insurance scheme for the last six months for which particulars are available and for the corresponding period of each year since 1924?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

I regret that it is not possible to give figures for the cost of administration of unemployment insurance in respect of half-yearly periods. The cost for each financial year since 1924–25 is as follows:




£


1924–25
…
4,494,760


1925–26
…
4,822,536


1926–27
…
5,039,488


1927–28
…
4,913,576


1928–29 (estimated)
…
4,930,000

These figures include charges borne on the Votes of the Ministry of Labour, Office of Works, General Post Office, and other Government Departments.

WEST LOTHIAN.

Mr. SHINWELL: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons, male and female, in West Lothian; and how many have been sent to other districts for employment under the Government transference scheme?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 10th December there were 2,435 males and 328 females on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in West Lothian. This is not one of the areas to which the special transference scheme applies.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is there no transference scheme applicable to this county, and why is the county excluded?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There has to be some limit with regard to the areas specially brought under the transference scheme. We are prepared to send a person from this area as well as others. Special endeavours are made in scheduled areas, and that is not one of them.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not a distressed area if there are more than 5,000 unemployed persons?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The figures I gave were less than 3,000. The percentage is much smaller than that of most of the distressed areas.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister aware that last night's "Glasgow Times," a Tory paper, contained an article with the headline "Midlothian Miner's being Crucified." Surely it is time the Minister was doing something for them?

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. POTTS: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as representing the First Commissioner of Works the amount expended on Employment Exchanges (including. divisional offices) in respect of new works, alterations, additions, and purchases for the years 1926–27 and 1927–28, respectively, and the estimated amount for the year 1928–29?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The figures are as follow:

Expenditure, 1926–27
…
£136,162


Expenditure, 1927–28
…
£207,131


Estimate for 1928–29
…
£205,000

ESTIMATED Numbers of Insured Persons and Numbers unemployed in Great Britain at the beginning of July, 1924 and 1928.


Industry.
1924.(a)
1928.(b)


Estimated Number of Insured Persons at beginning of July.
Insured Persons unemployed at end of June.
Difference between Cols. 2 and 3,
Estimated Number of Insured Persons at beginning of July.
Insured Persons unemployed at end of June.
Difference between Cols. 5 and 6.


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)


Productive:








Coal Mining
1,259,200
59,728
1,199,472
1,115,750
299,449
816,301


Building
713,530
56,239
657,291
802,200
77,869
724,331


Other productive industries.
5,984,870
660,985
5,323,885
5,985,770
597,935
5,387,835


Non-productive industries (c)
3,445,910
267,588
3,178,322
3,725,280
249,897
3,475,383


All Industries—Insured Persons:








Aged 16 and over
11,403,510
1,044,540
10,358,970





Insured persons aged 16 to 64.
11,074,000
1,020,000
10,054,000
11,629,000
1,225,150
10,403,850


(a) Figures include persons aged 65 and over.


(b) Relates to persons aged 16 to 64 inclusive.


(c) Includes the following industries and services:—transport and communication; distributive trades; commerce, banking, insurance and finance; national and local government; professional services; entertainments and sports; hotel, boarding house and club services; and laundries, dyeing, and dry cleaning.

LABOUR STATISTICS.

Sir JOHN POWER: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons estimated to be in employment in the month of July, 1924, and 1928, respectively, under the following classifications: coal mining, building, other productive industries, and all other industries?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The statistics of employment and unemployment among insured persons in particular industries in 1928 relate only to persons aged 16 to 64, inclusive, and corresponding figures for 1924 are not available. In that year the statistics relating to insured persons included those aged 65 and over. It was found from an inquiry in 1926 that persons aged 65 and over represented approximately 3.2 per cent. of the total insured population at that time, but this ratio varied between different industries. Corresponding figures showing the rate of unemployment among such persons are not available in respect of the dates in question for particular industries. I will, however, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving such information as is available.

Following is the statement:

Sir J. POWER: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons estimated to be in employment in all manufacturing industries other than motor vehicles, lace, silk, artificial silk, and musical instruments, in July, 1925, and July, 1928, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The statistics of employment and unemployment among insured persons in particular industries in 1928 relate only to persons aged 16 to 64, inclusive, and corresponding figures for 1925 are not available. In that year the statistics relating to insured persons included those aged 65 and over. It is estimated, however, that in the group of industries referred to by my hon. Friend, the number of insured persons aged 16 to 64 in employment at July, 1925, was approximately 4,856,000 as compared with 4,972,574 at July, 1928.

Mr. DALTON: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of wage earners, aged 60 to 64, inclusive, in the following industries, respectively, coal mining, shipbuilding, engineering, iron and steel, and cotton, and the corresponding figures for wage earners, aged 65 and over, in each of those industries?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. DALTON: Is it not possible, in view of the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) on 20th November, to subdivide the aggregate so as to show separate figures for each industry?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. It is difficult to give an answer offhand. The statistics are not so kept that they can be differentiated. I think there was a special inquiry in 1926, but of such a kind that the result would no longer be of use. If the hon. Member will talk to me about the matter, I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS.

RELIEF WORK.

Mr. ROBINSON: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men, women, boys and girls, respectively, employed
on work for the relief of unemployment as a result of the circular of 9th November, 1928?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The new terms of State aid, in respect of relief works, were only announced to local authorities five weeks ago. A number of schemes are in preparation, and special steps have been taken to deal with them rapidly. It is hoped that some will commence early in the New Year. I ought to add that schemes of public work, such as the authorities were invited to submit, do not in general find employment for women, boys and girls.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for how many men these schemes will provide work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not until I know what the schemes are.

Mr. TAYLOR: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that a number of schemes have been submitted already—I was referring to those.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: They are being submitted to Lord St. Davids Committee, but I cannot give the hon. Member the figure of the exact amount of work they will provide.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a condition of these schemes being accepted that a local authority must undertake to draw 75 per cent. of the labour from the South Wales district?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. 50 per cent. from distressed areas. The exact terms are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a case in my own constituency, where a scheme involving an expenditure of £14,000—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information. The question on the Paper is quite definite and has been answered.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is not the Minister of Labour aware that in the case of many of these schemes the Ministry's making a condition that 50 per cent. of the labour is to be taken from South Wales?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The 50 per cent. is from distressed areas.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Will you kindly consider, Mr. Speaker, that there are 94 Questions on the Paper and ask hon. Members to curtail the number of supplementary questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have been trying to point that out to hon. Members for the last 20 minutes.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it, not the fact that the Department refuses to allow a local authority in a distressed area to promote schemes to absorb some of the unemployed. For instance, the Dowlais Rural District Council—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

CLASSIFICATION.

Mr. ROBINSON: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of unemployment before a, district is classed as a depressed area; and whether this percentage is greater than that used for the classification of a distressed area?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Neither of these terms, so far as I am aware, is used in a precise statistical sense, so that the question can hardly arise of there being any difference in figures between them.

UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS SCHEME.

Mr. WELLOCK: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in regard to the unemployment grants scheme, he will, on account of housing and other difficulties, consider reducing the number of workers to be transferred from outside districts from 50 per cent. to 35 per cent. on condition that the balance of 15 per cent. be employed on the recommendation of the guardians in the areas concerned?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. In view of the special terms of grant, I do not think the percentage should be reduced below 50.

Mr. W. PALING: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour how many schemes have been submitted to the unemployment grants committee since the issue of the circular in November last; how many have been approved; and how many rejected?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: One hundred and three applications for grants have been made since the issue of the circular on 9th November. Fifty-four of
these are for grants on the new terms which include the condition about the transfer of labour. In addition about 100 preliminary inquiries have been addressed to the Unemployment Grants Committee. Eight of the 103 schemes have been approved, four rejected, and the remainder are under consideration.

Mr. PALING: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why some of these schemes are rejected? In at least one case, that of Hemsworth, which is one of the most distressed areas in Yorkshire, they had a scheme rejected without any good reason being given.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will provide me with particulars of any particular scheme I will go into the matter, and I will see whether I can give she local authority help with regard to it, if it can be brought into a form that could be considered.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right bon. Gentleman aware that the only reason given so far is that that happens to be a distressed area, and that the Minister suggests that they ought not to spend money in this direction?

SOUTH WALES.

Major OWEN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the persistence of the situation in South Wales and the impossibility of securing any immediate appreciable improvement in the coal industry, he will consider the appointment of a small temporary development commission endowed with necessary funds for the purpose of surveying the possibilities of the whole of Wales, with particular reference to South Wales, for large-scale schemes of afforestation, land reclamation, and arterial road construction, and other works of a national character?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The possibilities of development to which the hon. and gallant Member refers are constantly under examination by the Government not only from the point of view of South Wales, but from that of the country as a whole, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a body such as the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

Major OWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as things are at present, a sum of £100,000 per week is
spent in South Wales alone, on relief; and would it not be better to employ that money in carrying out schemes of national development in those areas where they are so badly needed?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: And is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Liberal party opposed the Bill of the Labour party which had that object in view?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. T. WILLIAMS:
25. To ask the Minister of Labour the number of persons on the live register at Stainforth, near Doncaster, on the last date for which figures are available?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Owing to t printer's error this is a repetition of a question which has been answered; and question No. 6 which is Unstarred should have been Starred:
To ask the Attorney-General whether any steps have been taken to ascertain whether the agreement or terms of settlement in the case of the Attorney-General v. Whitfield, of 4th October, 1927, have been carried out; and, if so, is ho satisfied that such agreement has been honoured.
Is there any means of asking this question now?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid not.

CANADIAN HARVEST (BRITISH WORKERS).

Mr. TAYLOR: 42 and 43.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many men who went to Canada this year under the special scheme for harvesters have now returned to Great Britain;
(2) how many men who went to Canada this year under the special scheme for harvesters and have now returned to Great Britain received the whole or part of their return passage money on loan from the railway or steamship companies or from Government funds; and whether he can state the total amount owing on this, account?

Mr. RILEY: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of harvesters who went to Canada under the Government's harvesting scheme and who have now returned to this country, and the total cost to date of the scheme?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to answer these questions. The number of harvesters who went to Canada was 8,449, and the number who have returned is 6,876. Of those who have returned 4,577 received a loan of the whole or part of their return passage money. I cannot state the total sum owed by these men in respect of the loans or the total cost of the scheme up to the present date, as all the accounts have not been received from the shipping companies.

Mr. TAYLOR: On whom will the loss fall if these loans are not repaid?

Mr. AMERY: I imagine that it will fall on His Majesty's Government, but I trust that there will be substantial repayments.

Mr. T. SHAW: Am I right in assuming that more than half of them borrowed money to come back?

Mr. AMERY: More than half did borrow money to come back.

Mr. TAYLOR: On what information did the right hon. Gentleman base his statements to the House in July that all these men would have an opportunity of saving from £30 to £40 after paying expenses? What justification had he for that statement?

Mr. AMERY: On the information available, I believe I had justification for it, and I believe that a very substantial portion of the men did save.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that responsible authorities in Canada, namely, the representatives of the three provincial Governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, together with the federal authorities, agreed that farmers should undertake no obligation with regard to the rate of wages to be paid?

Mr. AMERY: It was never suggested that there was any obligation on the part of the farmers or that a rate of wages should be guaranteed.

COAL INDUSTRY (RESEARCH).

Major OWEN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a small temporary commission to arrange for the co-ordination of research into the most scientific utilisa-
tion of coal; whether it is now possible to make such utilisation of coal a commercial proposition to be dealt with by the Government in the same way as the production of hydro-electrical power or, alternatively, by the creation of a national corporation?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): The Fuel Research Board of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is already conducting research into fuel economy questions and giving technical advice to other investigators of these problems wherever possible. Any attempt at closer co-ordination of private research would in my opinion do more harm than good. I am not prepared to express an opinion about the commercial possibilities of the numerous new processes now under investigation.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL SERVICES).

Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCE: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if the director of medical services of the Air Force has been granted a further extension; and, if so, for how long?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): T would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir H. Cayzer).

AIR SERVICES (AFRICA).

Mr. MALONE: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether an agreement has yet been reached between the Imperial Airways and the Cobham-Blackburn air lines for a trans-African air service; and whether he will publish the terms of this agreement?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas) on 10th December and to which he has at present nothing to add. As regards the second part, I am not in a position to say whether or in what form the agreement, which will be a commercial arrangement between the two companies, will be pub-
lished. I may add that if it is decided to subsidise the service in question from public funds, the House will, of course, be informed of the terms of any agreement, to this effect which it may be proposed to make between the Government on the one hand and the joint interests concerned on the other, as has been done in the case of the service between London and Karachi which is to be brought into operation next spring.

Mr. MALONE: What is the reason for the continued delay?

Sir P. SASSOON: There is no delay at all. The two interests concerned have only just conic to an arrangement.

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS (COSTS).

Mr. DAY: 55.
asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, gave the wife legal ownership of her own property and of the equality of the grounds of divorce conferred by the Act of 1923 on wives, he will consider introducing an amending Act of Parliament which will make the wife, in certain circumstances, responsible for the costs of divorce proceedings?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. Member does not gate the circumstances in which he suggests that the wife should be responsible for the costs of divorce proceedings nor does he specify the costs to which he refers. If he refers only to the wife's costs I understand that consideration is being given to the question whether the existing practice leaves sufficient discretion to the Court to award costs in exceptional cases, and whether the Rules should be amended for this purpose.

Mr. DAY: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman seen the views expressed by the President of the Divorce Court, Lord Merivale, and by Mr. Justice Salter?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TRADE UNION PAPER,

Mr. HANNON: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General if any officials in the service of the Post Office are directly associated with the publication and
circulation of the "Post," the organ of the Union of Post Office Workers; if his attention has been called to the diatribes against His Majesty's Government, and against individual Ministers which appear in successive issues of the "Post"; and if postal servants who may be employed in connection with this publication have been warned of the violation of the regulations of the Civil Service?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The editor of the paper in question is not in the Post Office service, but I understand the paper is controlled by a committee of the Union. I have seen some of the articles to which my hon. Friend refers. Whilst there is, so far as I am aware, no formal regulation on the subject, it is an implied condition of State service that servants of the Crown should not indulge in public criticism of Government policy, and it is inconsistent with this condition that civil servants should be associated with publications of a definitely political character. I have not, so far, thought it necessary to intervene in the case referred to.

Mr. HANNON: Is there any means whatever of preventing—no matter what Government is in power—an organ professedly representing a branch of the Civil Service from making violent attacks from week to week on Ministers of the Crown?

Mr. AMMON: Is there anything to prevent criticism by any body of people who are running a private journal among themselves?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The reply which I gave was couched designedly in measured terms, and was intended to be taken, and I hope will be taken, in the nature of a warning. I am prepared to add nothing to it.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Would it not be advisable to make all workmen Crown employés, and then we could be shut up altogether?

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH WORKERS.

Mr. HANNON: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Workers and Asso-
ciated Grades now embrace a membership of 7,000 postal servants, and that the postal servants who have joined this federation have seceded from the the Union of Post Office Workers owing to the political and industrial affiliations of that body, and because of the fact that the Union of Post Office Workers adopted a strike policy on matters which are outside the scope of a Civil Service organisation; and whether he will now take into consideration the propriety of according official recognition to the National Federation whose members abide by the tradition and rules of the Civil Service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am fully acquainted with the position as regards the association referred to. Its total membership among the grades which it seeks to represent forms too small a proportion of the total staff to justify the grant of full official recognition. Some of its constituent guilds are recognised either nationally or locally.

Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman discriminating between a loyal branch of the Civil Service and a disloyal branch; and will he give a further consideration to this matter of recognition?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it right to describe any body of men either as loyal or disloyal in this connection, when no question of loyalty to the Throne arises?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is not a question of discrimination. It is a question of administration.

Mr. PALING: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to stop attacks by people like the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) against Post Office workers?

TELEPHONE CALL FEES (FISH MERCHANTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Postmaster-General if he has received a communication from the Federation of British Wholesale Fish Merchants' Associations drawing attention by the hardship on individual traders caused by the heavy deposit required for trunk calls, which locks up a good deal of their capital which might otherwise be profitably employed in the maintenance and expansion of business, and
requesting him to consider favourably the extension of night trunk-call rates from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. in order to meet the requirements of the fish trade; and whether he will favourably consider these two requests?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley).

BEAM WIRELESS SERVICES.

Mr. WELLOCK: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General the total capital expenditure on the beam wireless system in the possession and control of his Department?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The total capital cost to the Post Office of the four Imperial beam wireless services was approximately £242,200. I should perhaps add that, as the hon. Member is doubtless aware, there is an annual royalty payable to the Marconi Company so long as any of their patents are employed in the stations.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is that the total cost of the beam service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The total capital cost.

Mr. MALONE: Is it a fact that some of these stations are already let to the Marconi Company for wireless telephony experiments, and, if so, is any rental being charged?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We are allowing the Marconi Company to conduct certain experiments at the Bridgwater Station.

Mr. HARDIE: And the turnover in the first year of the experiment is greater than all the capital that is going to be sunk in it.

INSURANCE SYSTEM.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to suspend the Post Office insurance system; and, if so, the reasons which have led him to make that decision?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the amount of new
business during the past decade has been too small to warrant the continuance of the system. For fuller information, I would refer the hon. Member to the Second Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, which was published on the 19th of July last.

Mr. BAKER: Has the Postmaster-General received an offer from an insurance company, and, if so, from what insurance company; and, if he proposes to consider any offers, will he leave the whole thing open to all insurance companies?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: So far I have not had any offer.

Major PRICE: Is not this one of the State enterprises which come into direct competition with private enterprise?

Mr. DAY: Is not the reason for the very small amount of business that the Post Office have absolutely neglected this branch of the business?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No. The fact is that the business has always been very small from the start, and I think in the last 20 years—if I remember rightly, since 1906—only in one year has the mount of new insurances reached 500.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will an opportunity be afforded to the House to discuss the matter before it is definitely decided to suspend operations?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have only reached question 61, and it is now 20 minutes to Four.

BROADCASTING (SCOTLAND).

Commander COCHRANE: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken by the British Broadcasting Corporation to overcome the difficulty experienced by listeners in Fife and other parts of Scotland, who are unable to receive messages from the Daventry station owing to interference from a German station transmitting on 1,649 metres; and whether he is aware that these listeners have already been cut off by interference from the Glasgow and Dundee stations?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am in communication with the British Broadcasting Corporation on this subject and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when I am in a position to do so. As he is aware, the question of the international regulation of wave lengths presents great difficulties owing to the large number of stations.

RATING ASSESSMENTS.

Mr. LOOKER: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a large number of ratepayers in the Wick-ford district of the Billericay Rural District Council desire to appeal against the new valuations of their properties, but will be at a great disadvantage when prosecuting such appeals unless they are aware of the basis on which such valuations were made by the expert valuer engaged; and will he call the attention of the Central Valuation Committee to the matter with a view to the necessary information being supplied?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend is not aware of any provision which entitles a ratepayer to be supplied with the information mentioned by my hon. Friend. The matter is not one in which the Central Valuation Committee are empowered to give any direction.

Mr. LOOKER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a similar position exists in many other districts of the same area and that it will be impossible for the householders concerned to prosecute their appeals under proper conditions unless they know the basis on which the valuations have been made, and cannot steps be taken to see that this information is available to them?

Sir K. WOOD: I know there are some difficulties such as my hon. Friend has mentioned, but I do not think there is any statutory provision by which they can see the basis on which such valuations are made. I think that at a later stage of the proceedings they will be entitled to certain information, but perhaps my hon. Friend will confer with me about it.

Mr. W. THORNE: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a protest from the Ratepayers'
Association, Laindon, Essex, in connection with the increase of re-assessments of houses and bungalows; if he is aware that in some cases assessments have been increased by 300 per cent.; and what reply he has made?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has not received any communication from the association referred to. In any case he has no power to intervene in regard to assessments for rates, which is a matter for the local authorities, subject to the right of appeal to the Courts. If a ratepayer considers that his assessment is too high he may lodge an objection with the assessment committee, and, if dissatisfied with the committee's decision, may then appeal to Quarter Sessions.

Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report in a newspaper of a meeting at Pitsea at which reports were made complaining about the assessments being raised as much as 400 per cent.?

Sir K. WOOD: No, I have not had the opportunity of seeing that account, but perhaps the hon. Member will draw the attention of the people affected to the answer I have given to-day as to the rights which they have in the matter.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any idea of the cost of an appeal to Quarter Sessions in the case of small house property?

Sir K. WOOD: I suppose that, to some extent, that depends on the cost of counsel; some counsel cost more than others.

Mr. DENNISON: 70.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst the ratepayers of Finchley and district as to the manner in which the proceedings of the North Middlesex assessment committee are recorded, which prevents adequate information being given to ratepayers as to assessments in accordance with the provision of Section 60 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925; and whether he will refer the matter to the Central Valuation Committee with a view to this information being given?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is not sure what information precisely the hon. Member has in mind. Any altera-
tions made by the assessment committee when revising the draft valuation list will be shown in that list which ratepayers are empowered by Section 60 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to inspect. It is not clear that, the matter is one in regard to which the central valuation committee would feel that they could properly take any action, but it is open to the hon. Member to lay the facts before them if he so desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 66.
asked the Minister of Health the expenditure per head of the population on maternity and child welfare in the counties and county boroughs for the year 1927–28?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend regrets that complete figures for 1927–8 are not yet available. The expenditure per head of population in. England and Wales met from Exchequer grants for the year 1926–7 was approximately 5½ pence in counties and 6½ pence in county boroughs.

PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. E. BROWN: 67.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis awaiting admission to sanatoria on the latest available date?

Sir K. WOOD: Separate figures for pulmonary cases are not available, but on the 1st December there was a total of 2,541 persons who had been awaiting residential treatment for tuberculosis from local authorities in England and Wales for more than 10 days. On the same date the total number of patients receiving such treatment was in excess of 21,000.

VENEREAL DISEASE.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: 72.
asked the Minister of Health what was the ratio per 10,000 of the population in England and Wales treated for venereal disease in 1927; and what was the ratio in the county Carnarvon?

Sir K. WOOD: According to the returns furnished to my Department, the number of cases of venereal disease dealt with for the first time by the treatment centres making the returns was 21.5 per 10,000
population in England and Wales, and 6.5 per 10,000 population in the county of Carnarvon. The hon. Member will appreciate that these figures include not only cases of recent infection but also large numbers of cases which had been infected some time before they attended at a treatment centre.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the average of cases in England and Wales exceeds those in the county of Carnarvon by 150 per cent.?

LONDON SQUARES.

Mr. BRIANT: 69.
asked the Minister of Health if, pending legislation dealing with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on London Squares, he will introduce a Bill providing that no alienation of such open spaces shall be permitted, and no compensation payable in respect of anything done or contract made in regard to them since the date of the Report?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend fears that it is impracticable to introduce such a Measure this Session in view of the pressure of other business.

Mr. BRIANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the production of the Report on these open spaces, already negotiations are proceeding for the alienation of two of them, that if he cannot bring in immediate legislation, so far from that Report having done good, it will lead to the immediate alienation of a large number of open spaces in London, and that if legislation is not soon effected, there may be no open spaces left?

Sir K. WOOD: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is no time for further legislation of this kind immediately.

BOLIVIA (DR. EDGAR. SANDERS).

Mr. CRAWFURD: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to reports that Doctor Edgar Sanders has been arrested in La Paz, Bolivia, and that he was released only on payment of five thousand bolivianos to a high official; whether any report has beer received from the British Minister in Bolivia, and what action he proposes to take?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no report on the subject, but I will make inquiries.

THE KING'S ILLNESS (BULLETINS).

Major Sir RICHARD BARNETT: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that no newspapers will be published on Tuesday or Wednesday next, he will take steps to alleviate the national anxiety by directing the publication through post offices or otherwise of the bulletins of His Majesty's health?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir. Arrangements will be made for the latest bulletins concerning His Majesty which may be available during the hours at which telegraph offices are open on Christmas Day and Boxing Day to be exhibited. At such offices as close before the normal hour of issue of the morning bulletin, that of the previous evening will be exhibited. On both days all bulletins will be broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take when we resume?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, the 22nd, 23rd and 24th January, will be the 5th, 6th and 7th Allotted days in Committee on the Local Government Bill.
The business for Friday will be announced when the House resumes after Christmas.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to Savings Banks, Savings Bank Annuities, and the Post Office Register," presented by Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the clock; and that at Nine of the clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Western Highlands and Islands (Transport Services) Bill, without Amendment.

Consolidation Bills,—That they have added a Lord to the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills, which are not Private Bills, in the present Session, and request the Commons to add one of their Members to the said Joint Committee.

Suspension of Bills,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of seven Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee on the Suspension of Bills, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th December].

[4th ALLOTTED DAL]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Rights of certain urban district councils to maintain county roads.)

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): On a point of Order. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the first Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South East Essex (Mr. Looker)—in page 25, line 26, to leave out from the beginning to the word "urban" in line 28 and to insert the word "every" —takes us to the word "urban". That will possibly cut out a good many other Amendments, and I should like your Ruling whether the third Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)—in page 25, line 26, after the word "urban" to insert the words "or rural"—is in order. This Amendment seeks to give a rural district council the same rights in this matter as urban councils, and I submit that it must be out of order as yesterday Clause 27 was approved by the Committee; and it was then decided that
as from the appointed day every county council shall -be the highway authority as respects such part of the county as is for the time being comprised in any rural district.
In lines 23 and 24, the Clause says:
rural district councils shall cease to be highway authorities.
I submit for your consideration that it may well be that having ceased to be the highway authority, although the rural district council may carry on delegated work as agents for a county council, it will be impossible for them to be able to claim that a road shall vest in them, and that therefore the Amendment must be out of order.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Committee yesterday accepted Clause 27. Surely he will remember that that Clause was not debated for a single moment. No
submission was possible on the whole of that Clause, and consequently the Committee never gave a moment's consideration to it. It is rather curious that the right hon. Gentleman on a point of Order should make a submission on the basis of the acceptance by the Committee of a Clause which was, never discussed. I submit, in view of the operation of the guillotine, which prevented any discussion on Clause 27, that in no way affects the possibility of the Committee having the privilege of discussing Clause 29, since if the Committee felt disposed to change Clause 29, Clause 27 could be put into line with the amended Clause 29 on the Report stage.

Colonel ASHLEY: Whether the Clause was discussed or not is was voted on by the Committee and they passed it. As to the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, hon. Members opposite took up such a long time on the other Clauses, that Clause 27 could not be discussed.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I submit that it is essential that the Committee should discuss this Amendment for two reasons: First, because of the size of many of the rural districts, many of them being larger than many urban districts; and, secondly, that the word "highway" which has been passed in Clause 27, does not only mean a road, but under the Highways Act of 1835, it may mean a horseway, a bridle way, a footway, a. causeway, a churchway, or a pavement. It is therefore essential that the roads of the rural local authorities should be discussed.

The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: As regards what may or may not happen under the Guillotine Resolution, I have no responsibility, but I have to see that Amendments which are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee are not moved. Clause 27 transfers highways from the rural district council to the county council, and it expressly provides that the rural district council will cease to be a highway authority. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) were carried, it would in fact vest certain county roads in the rural authorities, or enable them to claim that certain county roads should be vested in them when they were no longer highway authorities. I am bound to hold that, in my view, that point is covered by the decision of the Committee yesterday. With regard to the point of
the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), he raised what is largely a question of the merits—the size of the district council. That is not a matter which concerns the Chair. I have nothing to do with the merits or the demerits of any of the Amendments put forward, but I am bound to see that only Amendments are put forward which are in accordance with previous decisions of the Committee.

Sir EDMUND TURTON: It would be a convenience if we were allowed a general discussion on the different Amendments on the Paper. If that were allowed, it would be, of course, subject to the undertaking that in moving subsequent Amendments, we did not make any speeches.

Mr. TINKER: It is generally agreed, I think, that a general discussion would be a convenience, and I beg to ask that you will allow a wide scope in order that all the points can be covered.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is obvious that the great bulk of the Amendments on the Paper are really consequential on the two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker)—in page 25, line 26, to leave out from beginning, to the word "urban," in line 28, and to insert instead thereof the word "Every"; and in page 25, line 29, to leave out the words "exercise the functions of maintenance and repair of," and to insert instead thereof the words "be the highway authority as respects." It would be better, therefore, if we had a general discussion on the first Amendment, and I propose to put it in such a form as to save the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan)—in page 25, line 26, to leave out the word "a," and to insert instead thereof the words "an estimated."

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to move, in page 25, line 26, to leave out from the beginning to the word "urban" in line 28, and to insert instead thereof the word "Every."
4.0 p.m.
I am glad that you will allow a general discussion on this Clause, because the Amendment is connected with other Amendments relating to the same subject. The main object of this Amendment is
to give effect to the principles which appear in the Report of the Royal Commission, as to the lines upon which district councils should be entrusted with the maintenance and repair of main roads. It is important to bear in mind that in this Clause we are dealing with claimed roads only, that is to say, roads which district authorities are entitled as a right to claim to be allowed to repair and maintain without any supervision or control by the county council. In that respect, such roads are quite different from delegated roads, which are roads which district councils look after, having been delegated the function of looking after them by the county council, for whom they act as agents. In this case they are obliged to carry out the work on the roads in accordance with the wishes of the county council. At present, district councils are the highway authorities responsible for the maintenance and repair of numerous roads of various descriptions and classes throughout the country. Many of these roads are main roads in character. The existing position has lasted for a long time, and district councils of all descriptions and sizes have for a number of years been entrusted with the responsibility of looking after these roads. The proposals of the Bill take away entirely from certain district councils the right that they have had to look after these roads—a right which belongs to them alone—and vests these roads in the county council. It does leave to some district councils the power to claim to exercise the right, instead of the county councils. This Clause, however, goes a great deal further than that. To deprive all district councils of areas under 20,000 population of the rights they have exercised for a number of years, is something regarding which no suggestion whatever was made in the Report of the Royal Commission. In fact, the Royal Commission reported in an exactly different sense. What the Royal Commission said was that if it was proposed to entrust the district authorities with the function of looking after the roads, then it should be open to the Minister of Transport on representations being made that certain district councils ought not to have that function entrusted to them, to give effect to such representations. There was no suggestion whatever in the Report of the Royal Commission
that every district council, or any particular class of district councils should have their rights, which they have exercised for a number of years, taken away, as is the case under this Clause.
What we are asking in this Amendment is that the recommendation of the Royal Commission should be carried out, and all these districts have the right to exercise these functions which they have carried out for so long, subject to the provision that some of them may be deprived of it if it is thought fit that they should not have it upon representations made by the county council. The effect of the Clause as it stands is that all district councils in areas under 20,000 population, whether large or small, important or unimportant, efficient or inefficient, no matter how long they have been doing the work, no matter how well they have done it, will have all their powers arbitrarily taken away. The plant they have collected for the purpose of carrying out this work, and the staff they have built up, will be largely useless.

Colonel ASHLEY: All the powers regarding unclassified roads are left to them.

Mr. LOOKER: The point I am making is not that they are left without any powers as regards unclassified roads, but that they are being deprived of powers which they have exercised for a long time with regard to their roads, many of them being main roads. I am aware that they will be left with the function of looking after the smaller roads, but they ought to be allowed to continue looking after the larger and more important roads, as they have done for years past. It is in connection with these larger and more important roads that they have, in many cases, built up and added to their staff, got an organisation together to equip them to deal with the problems of maintenance and reconstruction of these main roads. As regards districts under 20,000 population, by the provisions of the Bill a great deal of expenditure involved in maintaining that plant and in establishing their organisation will be thrown away, and it has been public expenditure. It is quite true that, to some extent, their remaining staffs and their remaining plant will be useful in respect to the unclassified roads, but it will mean, I am informed, in a number of instances,
that a great deal of plant will have to be got rid of, because it will be no longer required, and possibly a great deal of the staff. In fact, as I say, in many cases of this under 20,000 population a great deal of their past work and expenditure will be thrown away entirely by the provisions of this Clause.
I would point out to my right hon. Friend that many of the main roads which these district councils have been maintaining for a number of years past go right through the centres of their towns, of which they form a most important feature, and I submit that it is not in accordance with the principles of sound administration that where the main road runs through a town in that way, that should be under the control of one authority, and all the roads leading u p to it should be under the control of another. There are many functions which have to be exercised in respect of these roads, main and otherwise, quite apart from the question of construction and maintenance, such as sewers, drainage, gas mains, water mains and other works of that description, all of which have to be carried out, and all of which have to be connected up between those different roads. Yet in the middle of a comparatively large and important town you may find two different bodies doing the same thing.
There is another point to which I would like to draw attention, and that is that under the Local Government Act, 1888, all these district councils of every description, and without any limitations, were given the right to obtain powers of maintaining and repairing main roads. That provision has existed ever since then, and has been taken full advantage of. There was no limitation on them as to population, or in arty other way, and, whether they were big or small, they were all given that right, which is being taken away by this Bill from those in areas under 20,000 population. It is not suggested, or I have never heard it suggested, that there has been any fault in the way the councils have exercised these powers. I have never heard it suggested that there has been any complaint whatever as to the way they carry out their work which renders it necessary that some of them should be deprived of these powers, and unless some ease of that description
can be made out, some extremely good ground can be found for it, this Committee should be very 10th to disturb the principle of local administrative responsibility which has worked well for a number of years.
I would like to remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that when he presented the Road Traffic Bill last year, he did not think it necessary to put in a proposal to disturb in any way the existing situation. It was perfectly open to him then, if he had thought it desirable to do so. to have put in the provisions he has put in this Bill, but evidently he did not think it was important enough then to deal with it in that Bill. That makes it a little more surprising why he should now include it in this Bill, although no suggestion to that effect was made by the Royal Commission. What is the reason for departing from the provisions of the 1888 Act? What is the reason for departing from the suggestion of the Royal Commission, and for departing from the principle which my right hon. Friend indirectly recognised in his London Traffic Bill? My right hon. Friend may, perhaps, say to the Committee that it is absurd that these smaller district councils should have these powers, and he may also say that you have got to draw a line, and, whatever line you draw, someone will complain. I quite agree with that, and I would suggest to him that the method which was suggested by the Royal Commission provided a much better and more equitable remedy than the one in this Bill. The Royal Commission clearly recognised that it might be absurd, or even impracticable, for some of the smaller authorities to have these powers, and that is why it is suggested that, in the case of these smaller authorities, it should be open to the county council to represent to the Minister of Transport the undesirability of the work being undertaken by any individual urban authority. I suggest that that is a much better and more equitable way of proceeding than the way which my right hon. and gallant Friend has adopted in the Bill, for the simple reason that it does not shut out all those responsible urban districts under 20,000 population which have been carrying on this work in the most efficient manner
for many years, and it leaves open each case to be decided on its merits.
I am informed that the urban districts attach the greatest importance to each case being decided on its merits, instead of a line being drawn, and all districts, whether good, bad or indifferent, being deprived of these powers. The point which we are now making, and the Amendments which we desire, are regarded by the urban district councils as of the utmost importance. They will be profoundly disappointed and discouraged unless this suggestion is met. I would ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, whether he does not consider it better, in view of the fact that since 1888 all this work has been done by councils of this description, to preserve this system, which has worked well, and in view of the fact that it will create great dissatisfaction if his proposals are actually put into the Act, whether he does not think it desirable to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, under which ample provision exists for insuring that district councils which ought not to do it should not carry out the work?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I have very few words to say in support of the Amendment. The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) has very well covered the major points on behalf of the very important association of local authorities. I would like, however, to emphasise the point that for 40 years urban districts councils have been empowered to exercise this particular function. As far as one knows, at all events, they have had the privilege since 1888.

Colonel ASHLEY: All the councils that were in existence before 1888.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman corrects what, after all, is a technical error. All the district councils that were in existence in 1888 had the privilege, if they cared to exercise it. As far as one can judge, they have not only justified their existence, but no county councils have had the temerity to suggest that urban district authorities, generally speaking, have failed to exercise to the best advantage the privilege granted to them. There is one great reason, perhaps, which ought to give the Minister deep concern before he makes
this very drastic change with regard to the various services which may be done by the local authority, such as the cleansing of the streets, the laying of sewers, water mains, gas mains, electricity cables and so forth. If the county councils have full charge of the main roads it will undoubtedly be the case that the urban authorities will find the roads which run through their towns hacked up for the laying of electric cables or for other purposes without their having been notified previously that the work was to be put in hand. The local officials, who best know the needs and the services of the district, ought always to he acquainted with what is to happen to roads within their own boundaries, whereas under the new arrangement the county council would be the only authority to be notified of any work which was to be undertaken. From that point of view the Minister might very well reconsider the position before he definitely settles that the county councils shall be the only highway authorities.
Another point I wish to raise concerns the limit of 20,000 population. It seems to me that while 20,000 may be a suitable limit for one district, 10,000 would be equally suitable for other districts, because no two districts are identical in character. This arbitrary figure of 20,000 is not even based upon the p resent-day population, but upon the census figures of 1921, and there are many cases in which the position in 1928 is very different from what the figures showed it to he in 1921. To accept a figure of 20,000 will be a gross injustice to many urban districts in which the present-day population is on the border of 20,000, and which, to all intents and purposes are equally as efficient in the discharge of their duties as are the authorities in districts where the population at the last census slightly exceeded 20,000. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, in other parts of the Bill, they make an estimate of the present-day population and on the basis of that estimate decide the financial arrangements between different authorities, but in this case depend upon the census figures in 1921?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) deals with the question of
estimated population, that subject cannot be raised on the general discussion which is now proceeding.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understood that before the first Amendment was moved it was agreed that there should be a general discussion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite right, but I specifically excepted the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees, and I have preserved that Amendment in putting the question; therefore, any questions of estimated population must be discussed when we come to that Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have no desire to pursue that point, and I will conclude by suggesting to the Minister that, in view of the need for local officials to be acquainted always with what is going to happen to their own roads, further consideration ought to be given to the question before it is definitely settled that the county councils shall be the one authority for the purpose of making and maintaining these roads. Secondly, I think the Minister might very well consider, if not at this moment, then at a later period during the discussion, whether the figure of the 1921 census should be the determining factor as regards the population.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I have listened with some astonishment to the development of the argument in support of this Amendment. It is more essential to-day than ever that roads should be, as far as possible, under a central management, because of their use in a way which was never contemplated when the earlier Act was passed. It is a most undesirable thing that any attempt should be made to deprive the central authority in a county of the powers which they have acquired since 1888 by introducing these small areas and exempting them from the jurisdiction of the county councils. Some time ago the Minister of Transport introduced a system of classifying roads, and as a result of an important speech made by Sir Henry Maybury, who was then. Director-General of Roads, in June, 1922, county councils made a further material movement towards arranging accommodation with the urban councils.
Sir Henry Maybury, who was addressing the Executive Council of the County Councils Association, said:
I urge you, Gentleman, as representing the county governing authorities, to take into consideration the advisability of taking over all the classified roads as main roads. They would not have been classified if they were not important. They have been put up to us by yourselves as being the important roads in your several counties, and I submit with some confidence that their cost should not be a charge on a district rate.
You have agreed the importance of these roads by putting them up for classification, and they do, in fact, support a traffic other than purely local traffic. It would help these smaller authorities with their low rateable value and appliances which are sometimes inefficient for dealing with the work, and it would assist them very much and equalise the burden if you, gentlemen, would consider the advisability of accepting responsibility for those roads. We will gladly help you in making the course easy for the minor authorities. We would make grants towards the reconstruction or improvement of such roads so that they may meet the requirements of your surveyors, and we would help further by enabling the highways authority to spread the burden which would rest upon them in meeting your requirements. I would urge you to take a hill-top view of that position, and to take over, as I submit it is your duty, and I hope it will be your pleasure to do, and maintain all the important roads of your counties.
Acting upon advice, the county councils approached their urban and rural councils with a view to arranging an accommodation with them. I can speak for the metropolitan county of Middlesex, which is in an exceptionally difficult position to-day. The provisos of this Clause, and the following Clause, are such as to destroy the agreement which has been made over a period of years: many of them date back to 1888, and certainly since that recommendation was made to the county councils a very large number of bodies have come in. Members of the Committee who are not motorists would hardly credit what the position would be if the proposals of this Bill were adopted. The metropolitan county of Middlesex, with its dense population, has become urban in a very remarkable way, and there are now 36 urban district councils in the county and only some eight or nine very small districts are left. Through the population flowing in and forming new districts, there has been such a creation of urban districts within
the county that if this Bill were to be passed as it is drawn the county council might be left with control of the main roads over only a very small margin on the western side of the county.
Obviously, it is not in the interests of the motoring public or of the road traffic combinations that there should be otherwise than the most perfect and uniform service of roads that it is possible to have. Hon. Members may not realise that the Great West Road, which runs from Chiswick to the junction of the Bath Road with the Staines Road, passes through the districts of six different urban authorities. If the Bill passes in its present form, that road will not be under one general control and supervision, as it is now; we shall not have one method of road-making to preserve the continuity of type in that road. Then there is another road, 120 feet wide, which is being made for the purpose of accommodating the docks traffic and avoiding congestion of traffic in central London. The road commences near the Thames on the west and makes a circuit through the county of Middlesex, connecting up with the docks. That road passes through the area of 13 different urban district authorities. Is it reasonable to have 13 different authorities responsible for one large arterial road? That will only make confusion worse confounded, and therefore I hope that before the Bill passes from this House its provisions will be very considerably curtailed in this respect, so that in the interests of the public we may have one authority ruling such a road throughout its whole length. The same observations would apply to arterial roads in Cambridge-shire, and to others which are similarly situated.
In 1898 a private Act of Parliament was passed to assist the administration of the county of Middlesex, and that gave power to authorities which had claimed to maintain their roads under the Act of 1888 to reconsider their position and to give up their right. Not a few of them did so. Here, then, we find that this Clause will interfere with what was practically a Parliamentary bargain under which various authorities—and very large authorities—have been content to allow the county council to take over the maintenance of their roads. We contend that the charges in
respect of them should be borne as is indicated by Sir Henry Maybury in his speech. So many authorities have availed themselves of the permission granted by the Act of 1898 that I think only nine out of 36 urban councils now claim and have the power of maintaining all kinds of roads in their districts. This Bill in its present form would tear up this arrangement, under which district councils are perfectly content.
The same considerations apply in the case of the rural districts. The county council has maintained the main roads which run out of London through the rural districts without any objection from the rural district councils. The county council have established depots in various places, with materials and men working under gangers; these are ready at any moment to deal with emergencies which may arise in connection with the maintenance of the roads. What is to become of them? If this Amendment were carried out, these depots would be useless from the county's point of view, and if they were not purchased by the local authorities—which is very unlikely, as the latter have their own staffs for maintaining their local roads—the county council would be involved in considerable loss. If this goes through, the county will be responsible not only for that expense but also for the superannuation of their own staff. Middlesex has been accustomed to assume these liabilities in respect of the urban districts in the county. There are in Middlesex 27 such districts and they have borrowed money at the rate of £4.16 per cent., whereas the urban councils and district councils pay 5¼ per cent. Surely those are points of material importance in considering whether any alteration should be made. I would like to call attention to the White Paper which has been issued in relation to this Bill. First of all, there is the White Paper, issued in June 1928, which states, in paragraph 14:
(i) The counties will assume complete responsibility for the maintenance of all roads in rural districts, and the substantial existing differences in the highway rates payable in individual rural districts in the same county will disappear.
Surely that is a point worthy of consideration. Paragraph 14 (ii) says:
The responsibility resting upon the counties for the maintenance of through
communications will be extended by the transference to them of the financial charges in respect of all Class I and Class II roads in boroughs and urban districts outside the county boroughs.
(iii)The counties will become highway authorities in respect of all roads transferred to them, but consideration will be given to the question whether, and if so, on what conditions, certain of the other authorities should not carry out the actual work on their class I and Class II roads and ether 'main' roads, where it is clear that such a course is justified by considerations of efficiency and economy.
That is the practice to-day and that obligation is almost universal. In the larger districts the counties are accustomed to delegate to the local authority the powers of maintaining their roads, and before payment is made there must be a certificate issued that the work has been properly executed. Who can say that that is not a wise provision? The central authority is able to buy its material in large quantities, and thus get all the advantages accruing from large dealings, and yet they can place the local authority in the position of being their authority with delegated powers. Paragraph 14 (iv) says:
Boroughs and urban district councils will continue to be responsible for the maintenance of the roads in their areas (mainly residential 'streets') which are not already maintainable by the county or which would not be transferred to the county as classified roads under paragraph (ii).
I have quoted those paragraphs from the White Paper issued in July. After that there came the evidence given on behalf of the Ministry of Transport before the Royal Commission on Local Government, and I want to draw attention to some answers given by Mr. Piggott, principal assistant secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who appeared for the Ministry of Transport. He was asked:
Q. Is there anything in the scheme to prevent the county council using the district council as their agents for doing some if not all of their roads?—That would be an agreement under the provisions of Section 11, sub-section (4), of the Act of 1888.
Q. Is there anything in the Government scheme which would prevent that?—There is nothing in the Government scheme which would prevent that being carried out.
It is clear that the evidence given before the Royal Commission shows that their recommendation would leave the Council in the same position as they were before. Now I come to what I think is an inconsistency in the provisions of this Bill. The
Minister of Health in his speech on the Second Reading said that the provisions of this Measure mainly carried out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government. That Commission reports, in paragraph 158, as follows:
We were asked to consider the question of delegation by county councils to the councils of county districts in regard to the maintenance of roads in the event of the proposals being put into effect. The following suggestions are necessarily subject to this hypothesis and we express no opinion upon the proposals generally. With this reservation we have come to the following conclusions: County councils should be empowered to delegate the maintenance of classified and main roads to councils of county districts if they think fit; but it is observed from paragraph 14 (iii) in the Proposals for Reform in Local Government that consideration will be given to the question whether, and if so, on what conditions certain of the other authorities (i.e., county district councils) should not carry out the actual work on their Class I and Class II roads and other main roads. No doubt the larger authorities will he entrusted with such work.
The Minister of Health in his speech on the Second Reading said that the provisions of this Bill were founded on those conclusions but I submit that it is nothing of the sort. The Second, White Paper issued by the Minister of Health, in November, 1928, paragraph 27, on page 15, reads as follows:
Under the Local Government Act, 1888, when the county councils became responsible for main roads, any urban authority had a right to claim to maintain a main road within 12 months, either after the appointed day under that Act or after the 'maining' of the road. It is intended, in accordance with the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government, which included representatives of the principal associations of local authorities. and whose Report has recently been published, that this right should be exercisable by the larger urban authorities in relation to main roads in their areas, whether or not they have already made a claim under the 18,8 Act.
That is not so, as I have already pointed out. This is a matter of great importance to my county, which has the fate of dealing with the traffic leaving London on the north side and the north-west side. In order to bring about the creation of these large roads and widenings those powers have been exercised by the district council, and I think it is a grievous thing that this Bill should rip up that arrangement and again set district councils by
the ear when they are perfectly content to go on under the arrangements I have mentioned. I hope the Committee will reject this Amendment and do what is necessary when the time comes to insist that the public users of these roads shall receive the first consideration.

Mr. TINKER: I think in matters of this kind some attention must be paid to the people who have to administer this particular local government work. In my constituency there are two urban district councils and both of them have asked me to speak against the 20,000 population figure being retained in this particular Clause. This attitude is not due to political bias. Certainly one of these councils has a Labour majority and the other has not, but both of them are emphatic in asking that some alteration should be made in this particular Clause. At the last census one of these urban district authorities had a population of 138 short of 20,000, but if the census were taken now it would be found that the population of that district is over 20,000 and surely they ought not to be barred on that account.
This particular urban district argues that they have carried out this work efficiently in the past, and there has been no trouble whatever between them and the county council and seeing that is so they cannot understand why the Minister of Health should attempt to alter the existing conditions. When the Minister of Health spoke on the Second Reading of this Measure he said that he did not draw a hard and fast line in regard to any particular Clause, and if representations were made to him giving good grounds for making alterations he was quite willing to listen to them. This afternoon there seems to be a concensus of opinion on all sides on this question, and I ask the Minister to take back this particular Clause and remodel it in time for the Report stage. I ask him to give close attention to the representations which have been made to him in view of what the representatives of the county council authorities have asked for, and I hope he will be able to alter the existing figure.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: I am sorry that on this occasion I find myself in disagreement with the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for
South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), as we are all three members of the executive committee of the Urban District Councils Association. As chairman of an urban district with a population under 10,000 I have come to the conclusion that the Government is right in their treatment of this matter and that the Amendment we are discussing would not be to the advantage of the smaller urban district councils. I think it is perfectly obvious—and certainly it will be the case in my own county of Lancashire—that the county council will inevitably delegate its authority on these matters to the urban district councils who have had much experience of this particular kind of work and can do it efficiently. In the long period which I have devoted to the work of an urban district council I have discovered that many of those councils seem to enjoy being at loggerheads with their county councils, and I have been able to preserve my own urban district council from getting into that unfortunate position. I find that the Lancashire County Council behave to the urban district councils extremely well in these matters, and I have not the least doubt that my own urban district council will have these powers delegated to it because it has done the work efficiently in the past.
For these reasons, I hope the Committee will reject this Amendment. I cannot help feeling that the Government scheme will be very greatly to the advantage of those districts which are efficiently managed and to the disadvantage of those which are not efficiently managed. That is to say, the Government's scheme is protecting those urban district councils which do their work properly for the county, and depriving the inefficient ones of the opportunity of squandering the joint fund on which the county council depends. That is really my reason for expressing the hope that the Government will hold firm on the matter, although the Urban District Councils Association as a whole has taken the opposite view, as expressed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-East Essex. I am a little afraid, from what I have seen of the controversy which has arisen on this matter, that in many cases it is exaggerated care for the dignity of the individual councillors that
has made them so strong on this point. My experience of urban district council work has been that that position is so undignified to start with, and involves so many kicks and so few half-pence, that one's dignity is hardly worth bothering about. I suggest that it is the outraged dignity of councillors as much as anything that has instigated this Amendment, and, although the hon. Member for South-East Essex put forward various reasons for his Amendment, they must appear so extremely flimsy to anyone who has had experience of looking after the highways department of an urban district council that I think my suggestion is amply justified.
For example, the hon. Member talks of the vast amount of road plant and machinery that the urban district councils will have to scrap under this scheme. But any urban district council with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, which keeps more than one tar boiler, possibly a stone breaker, and, if it is very progressive, a concrete mixing machine—if it spends its ratepayers' money on providing more plant than that, it is in my opinion a most extravagant urban district. Therefore, the hon. Member's idea that the amount of plant to be scrapped by urban district councils with less than 20,000 inhabitants is an important matter may be disregarded. It is not going to amount in any case to more than £200 or £300 at the utmost. It is well known to hon. Members that, if a contractor is doing this kind of work, he buys plant for the work, and, when the work is finished, sells it practically as scrap; so that to plead that immensely large quantities of valuable machinery are going to be scrapped because some inefficient little urban district is deprived of the right to carry out work on the roads for the county is an argument which is quite beside the point, and such circumstances are not likely to occur in actual practice. The main point is that those urban districts which can manage to keep on good terms with their county councils will, in my opinion, be perfectly content with the provisions of the Government's scheme. But in the case of those urban districts which spend their whole time in picking quarrels with their county councils, and in asking for more money for the maintenance and repair of the roads than the county council thinks it is justified in spending, the
Minister will probably find that in the future, as in the past, they will continue to keep these vendettas going with their county councils, and they are very properly, under the Bill, to be deprived of the opportunity of fighting their county councils on this matter.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: As the Minister of Transport knows, the urban district councils of the country are feeling very unhappy with regard to this Bill. I am not referring so much to those which have a population of over 20,000, as I think it will be agreed that they will be able to look after themselves; but I do want, in company with other Members on both sides of the Committee, to put in a plea for those urban districts which have a population of less than 20,000. I take it that there is general agreement in the Committee that the plan for road snaking and for road repairs and maintenance on a wider system of large-scale planning is sound, and in the best interests of the country. There is no quarrel upon that point; the point of quarrel lies in the fact that no real place is left, as there ought to be, in the actual administration, for some of the authorities which it is proposed in practice to cancel out under this Bill. I want to put the view of my own constituency, which happens to be almost exclusively built up of urban district councils. I cannot claim, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is able to claim, that it includes any urban district whose population is nearly 20,000; the whole of the urban district councils in my constituency are well below 20,000. I think, however, that the Minister appreciates that all of them who are exercising road powers under the Local Government Act, 1888, are feeling very sore about the removal of those important powers that is in prospect under this Bill.
With regard to the financial argument which has been put forward, if the Minister will turn to page 5 of the Memorandum drawn up by the Urban District Councils Association, he will find that they say specifically that, if Clause 29 of this Bill be applied, the nation will be involved in increased charges for roads. The words that they use are:
Increased expense will undoubtedly occur if the maintenance of the roads is transferred to the county councils.
I should like the Minister to deal with that point, because I am quite sure that he would never wish to cancel out important powers of local authorities if the practical consequence was an increase in the general road charges of the country. From that point of view, I would like to submit a particular case from my own constituency, namely, that of the Thurlstone Urban District Council, where, in addition to other objections, the financial objection is raised in relation to this proposed deprivation of highway powers. The clerk of the Thurlstone Urban District Council writes:
My council's district is situated at one of the extreme boundaries of the district of the West Riding County Council, and, if the county authority were to have to repair, etc., it would involve the bringing of the necessary road material, staff, etc., long distances, and thus increase the cost. This is not a mere opinion on the council's part, hut they have found that the cost of repairing main roads in immediately adjoining districts having similar roads which the county authority have in recent years taken over and repaired by direct labour, greatly exceeds that incurred in my council's district.
That is the general point of view of the Urban District Councils Association, implemented by a particular case taken from my own constituency. I would ask the Minister to be good enough to reply, in relation to Clause 29, particularly from this financial point of view.
I should also like to ask the Minister, partly in the light of that criticism, whether he cannot see his way to establish some other criterion with regard to highway administration than the mere population figure. It does not seem to me that there is any necessary causal relation between the number of people living in an urban district and their capacity and fitness for continuing to be the highway authority. I would ask the Minister whether he does not think it would be worth while to have some alternative line of division, some alternative standard of value, other than merely the population, when he is carrying out such a drastic and sweeping reform. I observe that, in Part II of the Second Report of the Royal Commission dealing with this subject of local government, it is suggested, with regard to urban district
councils whose population is less than 20,000, that the Minister himself should retain certain vital powers in his own hands. So far as I understand the Clause in question, those powers are now to be removed, and I would ask the Minister if he is not prepared to insert in the Clause a provision making it possible for urban district councils, and possibly lesser authorities also, to have a right of appeal to him before these important powers are taken away. The population test does not seem to me to be an adequate one to meet the situation, and I think that, if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of using his powers in this direction, he would go a long way towards meeting what seem to me to be very real and widespread grievances among urban district councils which have not yet a population of 20,000.

Colonel ASHLEY: It may, perhaps, be well, as the discussion has ranged over a good many points, major and minor, if I bring the Committee back to the actual Amendment which we are discussing at the present time. Clause 29 of the Bill provides that an urban district council with a population of more than 20,000 shall have the right to claim from the county council the privilege of maintaining, repairing and improving any or all of the county roads in their urban area. That is a very considerable privilege and a very considerable asset, and it is, naturally, appreciated, because the county council has the privilege of paying to the urban district council the expenditure which they are incurring on these main roads during the financial year. The Amendment starts on the supposition that, instead of 20,000 being the population limit for an urban district council, every urban district council, whatever its population, should have this very considerable privilege, but two of my hon. Friends have proceeded to suggest qualifications.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) suggests that the privilege should be abolished if the population falls at any time below 10,000, and the Minister of Transport of the day approves of the suspension of that power; while my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) and his Friends say that the privilege may be taken away if the population falls below 20,000. Therefore, in essence, the Amend-
ment that we are taking now is in the nature of a joint discussion as to whether the population shall be 20,000, or 10,000, or some other figure, the Government, of course, favouring 20,000; and, in consequence of this, there are several Amendments on the Paper—

Mr. HOPKINSON: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman keeps talking about "this privilege." Why does he describe it as a privilege?

Colonel ASHLEY: I describe it as a privilege because all the urban district councils and their members seem to be asking that it should be given to them. Whether it is a privilege or not must be a, matter of opinion; I can only judge from the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex and the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who are members of the Executive of the Urban District Councils Association. If my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex will allow me to say so, I have seldom listened to a speech with greater pleasure than to his on this occasion, but I have also seldom listened to a speech in which there were more, not inaccuracies, but glosses on the meaning of what has actually happened and the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I am quite sure: that they were unintentional, but, really, they were not quite in accordance with facts.

Mr. LOOKER: I assure my right hon. Friend that I have studied with the very greatest care what the Royal Commission said, and I did not intend in any way to put a gloss upon it. Indeed, I am not capable of putting a gloss on anything. I stated what I believe to have been the effect of the Report of the Royal Commission, and my opinion is shared in quarters which I know are most intimate with the procedure and findings of that Commission, so that I am not alone in my opinion.

5.0 p.m.

Colonel ASHLEY: Of course, the hon. ember is entitled to his opinion as to hat the Royal Commission really recommended, as I am o mine. Perhaps the reason why we do not see exactly through the same spectacles is that, as the Royal Commission's Report was unanimous, naturally it must be rather vague. Coming to the history of the question, the
power to claim was given by the Act of 1888 to all urban district councils who claimed it within 12 months of the passing of the Act. In the last 40 years great anomalies have grown up. Small urban councils with three or four thousand inhabitants have this very important power—I will not call it a privilege any more—and many urban councils with 35,000 population have no such power at all. Therefore, it is obvious that something has to be done. You cannot leave it in this position that there are urban councils with 30,000 inhabitants who have not these powers and small ones with 3,000 or 4,000 who have. The only question that arises is where shall you draw the line. I do not think anyone would put forward the contention that all of them, however small, should have them in view of the changed position of to-day. The only question is where the line should be drawn.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: What is the point of giving the power to all these urban councils, however big they are?

Colonel ASHLEY: After all, an urban district council with 30,000 inhabitants is a responsible body. It is a question merely of population limit. My hon. Friend suggests 30,000 or 40,000. The Government have come down quite definitely with a limit of 20,000. Those Members who support the case of the urban district councils say, "Give it to as many as possible." My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) says, "Give it to everyone, whether they have two or three thousand or whatever the number is." On the other hand, there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) to leave the Clause out. Ho speaks with authority. He is the chairman of the County Councils Association Executive. He is a very prominent member of the association and I presume he speaks for it with full responsibility. His Amendment is in accord with the evidence given by the County Councils Association before the Royal Commission, and they say, "Keep everything, in all circumstances, however large the urban council, in the hands of the county council." The Government equally propose to ask the Committee to
reject that proposition, just as they wish to reject the proposition that three or four or 10 thousand should be the limit. If you walk in the middle of the road you go the safest way.

Mr. HURD: Is that based on the Royal Commission?

Colonel ASHLEY: My answer to that is that I cannot find in the conclusions of the Royal Commission any reference to claiming at all. On that point I submit that the Royal Commission is silent. It says:
County councils should be empowered to delegate the maintenance of classified and main roads to county district councils if they think fit.
Delegation does not mean claiming. Delegation means handing over certain duties to bodies as agents for the county council. Therefore anything that is recommended by the Royal Commission as regards the delegation of powers to urban and rural district councils has nothing to do with the matter we are discussing. The only point that is really relevant to this discussion in section 18 of the Report is that the Royal Commission very clearly take 20,000 inhabitants as the dividing line between the major and minor authorities, and in this we have absolutely followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission. So that I think I can legitimately say that in this proposal we have not departed from the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and we have in one important respect, namely, population, followed it exactly as they have suggested. I appeal to the Committee to look at this question, not from a parochial point of view, not from the point of view of the Urban District Councils Association or the County Councils Association, but from the point of view of what is really going to be for the benefit of the country, what is going to be the most economical way and what is going to help us to solve these very important questions. It must be obvious that, within limits, the more you can centralise your administration and your finance, the better. On the other hand, the more you can decentralise and devolve the actual work on the local bodies, subject to the control and financial direction of the major body, the better. This we have done in this proposal and
I hope now my hon. Friend, having heard the explanation, will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I should like to press the point of the Royal Commission a little further. I think it is true that the Minister has departed from the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and it is a fair question to ask why he has done it, because in so many other particulars, in other parts of the Bill, the Government has accepted their recommendations. As I understand it, the departure that has been made is this. It is quite true that the Royal Commission suggested the figure of 20,000, but they never suggested that all local authorities with a population of less than 20,000 should not enjoy rights with regard to the maintenance of roads.

Colonel ASHLEY: They never mentioned it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: As I understand it, their view was that the duty should not be undertaken if the Minister of Transport thought they were not fit to undertake it. I think that is the meaning of the Royal Commission Report.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): That is delegation.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not on the point of delegation at all. I am on this point, that the Royal Commission visualised local authorities with a population of less than 20,000 as highway authorities. Many of us are under that impression from our reading of the Report. If we are wrong we ought to be shown where we are wrong, because it is certainly the view of the Association of Municipal Corporations that the Bill departs from the proposals of the Report.
Then there are two questions which I should like to ask the Minister of Transport to answer. One has been put already but not answered. The first is, suppose a local authority, whether by growth of population or extension of its boundaries, reaches 20,000 population, will it thereafter exercise the powers of an authority which at the time of the passing of the Act has a population of 20,000, and would they in those circumstances claim to take over from the county the roads hitherto held by the county? The next question was raised
by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and it seems to me a very important one. In an urban district authority whose roads pass under the control of the county council, you may well have half a dozen different authorities—the gas committee, the water committee, the electricity committee, the committee that deals with sewers—al] engaged in work under the road, whilst the road is dealt with by the county council. What is to be the position?
I dare say it is a matter for co-ordination between the major and minor authorities, but what safeguards are there going to be to ensure that the road authority and the authority whose works, whether it be gas mains or electricity cables, that pass under the road, shall not be at cross-purposes? What powers are the urban districts going to have to take up the roads in order to repair cables, and what powers are the county councils going to have to order the alteration of cables under the road belonging to the urban districts? Some arrangements ought to be made between the major and minor bodies if there is to be proper co-ordination between the two and between their services. I hope the Minister will deal with this question of the Royal Commission, because Members opposite, as well as on this side, are apparently under the impression that there is some difference between the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the proposals in the Bill.

Sir E. TURTON: I do not want to say anything that may seem to conflict with the pleasant and harmonious relations that exist between the county councils and the minor local authorities. I do not want it to be understood that the county councils are a grasping body that wish to take over all these powers. They are only concerned, in the interests of good government, to carry out their duties most economically and efficiently. But I hope the Committee are not going to perpetuate the very great mistake that was made in the Local Government Act of 1888. At that time very much the same arguments were put forward as are being put forward to-day. "You have all these authorities. They have done their work well. They have plant, they have surveyors, and they have men. Why not let them continue?" So they were allowed to continue, and the result has
been that the county councils ever since have had to put up with this position, that any urban district council, no matter how small, how extravagant, or how inefficient, could claim the right to the main road that went through its areas. Even a small urban district council of 230 inhabitants had that right. They could do the roads entirely in their own way and they could spend what money they liked, and the county councils had to foot the bill. Does anybody at this time really desire that that condition of things should continue?
I think, if I may say so with great respect, that Members always look upon urban district councils as towns and streets and as roads going through towns. To-day, as was proved before the Royal Commission, there are many urban district councils that are absolutely rural in character, just as there are many rural district councils which are absolutely and entirely urban in character. I can speak from experience of the North Riding of Yorkshire, where there was an urban district council which had a very large area of grouse moor. The county main road going through this grouse moor for a distance of five or six miles was claimed by the urban district council. I think that we shall all be agreed that this sort of thing does not tend towards either efficiency or economy. There is not the slightest desire on the part of the county councils to curtail delegation in any shape or form. With regard to the non-county boroughs and the urban district councils which have had this authority in the past —and I quite admit that some have had it for 40 years and have done their work well—the county councils will be only too ready and desirous that they should continue. Therefore, this harrowing picture of plant being scrapped and men being thrown out of work cannot possibly have any effect upon an intelligent audience who have any knowledge whatever of local government.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech, quite rightly said that the county councils do not see any point whatever in the 20,000 limit, or in any limit whatever. If you have the power of delegation, you can give it to an urban district council whether it has a population of 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000. You will never
satisfy hon. Members upon the exact figure. In regard to this figure of 20,000, we have already had one or two hon. Members quite rightly ask, in the interests of their own constituencies, why the figure is not 19,000, or 9,000, and so on? The only logical conclusion is, to sweep out altogether the number of 20,000 and leave all non-county boroughs and urban district councils to be under the county councils as far as the main roads are concerned. We do, indeed, say to these minor local authorities; "Hands off our county main roads!" Leave us in order that we may take a broader and a big view. You are going to give us town planning because everybody is agreed that you cannot conduct town planning on a small scale. You would never dream of giving town planning to urban district areas. I was on the Royal Commission on London Government, and on that Commission we were unanimous that you must take a very broad and wide view. How can you possibly have this patchwork selection of roads? After all, the small authorities could improve the roads according to their own ideas because the roads were vested in them. It is not merely a question of the maintenance and repair of the roads; it is a question of the actual vesting of the roads. My right hon. Friend has given instances of what would happen in Middlesex. There are plenty of other instances.
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment and who is the Member for one of the Divisions of Essex did not inform the Committee what would happen in Essex under this 20,000 limit. There you have a very good road called Eastern Avenue extending for 7¼ miles. In regard to that road no less than four different authorities can put their noses in and say how it is to he repaired, and, above all, how it is to he improved. It ie not so much the maintenance or the repair but actually the right to say how it could he improved. In Surrey there is a very lengthy road in respect of the care of which there are no less than five different authorities. I could multiply these instances all over the country. In Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire or anywhere, one finds exactly the same state of affairs, and one which certainly does not lead to economy or efficiency. Are we not all aiming at making the fewest possible number of
authorities in regard to this matter? Do we not aim at simplicity? I do not like troubling the Committee with figures, but there are 61 county councils in England and Wales. There will be, if you have your 20,000 limit, no fewer than 179 minor local authorities who can butt in and claim this privilege. Surely, for that reason, it would be much wiser that county councils should have entire power over the main roads and of these other roads?
With regard to the Royal Commission of which I was a member, the two right hon. Gentlemen who have quoted our report have done so absolutely accurately and have, I think, interpreted our opinion. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman says that in order to be unanimous we were discreetly vague. Nevertheless, I do not think that there is any vagueness in our language. What we said was that the county councils should be empowered to delegate the maintenance of classified and main roads to county districts if they thought fit. There is not a word in the Royal Commission's Report which deals with the vesting of these roads in the local authorities. There is not a word which deals with the question of claiming. All we were concerned with was that there should be absolute delegation of these roads. We were absolutely unanimous, and there was nothing vague or incoherent at all. We were absolutely unanimous that main roads and classified roads should be under the county council. On that let there be no mistake and no doubt. It will he seen by any hon. Members who take the trouble to read our Report that we never referred to, and had not in our minds for a moment, the question of perpetuating the claiming of these roads.
The evidence was overwhelming. I am not referring entirely to the county council evidence. Hon. Members may say that it was tainted evidence and put forward in order that we might get our own way in regard to this matter. The evidence throughout, the independent evidence, was entirely overwhelming that these large arterial roads, which are so absolutely necessary for the commerce, trade and the enjoyment of our people, should be put under as few bodies as possible, and that they should be put under the county councils. I am very glad, indeed,
to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in his place, and I hope that; he will support our view in this matter. Leave us and trust us. That is what we are asking you to do. You can trust us, and, indeed, you should. For that reason I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment, and that when we come to the Clause they will also reject it.

Mr. VIANT: I have listened very attentively to this Debate, and to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. When I first read the Clause I was surprised to find how inconsistent was the principle embodied in this Clause compared with the principle contained in the Bill in general. Throughout the Bill there is a desire to make the county council the authority. This Clause deviates from that principle in the sense that it confers on the urban authorities the right to make a claim or, rather, the power to claim the right of administration in connection with these roads. I think that this is a deplorable feature. I think that the principle should have been retained, and that the county council should have been the authority concerned in reference to all the roads. An instance has been given this afternoon by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) in respect of the manner in which the principle of the delegation of powers to the local authority operates in connection with the Middlesex County Council. I hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench a few moments ago would at least have been prepared to give the Committee some idea as to his views, or as to his intentions in regard to the proposals advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing. I have had some experience in the Middlesex area in connection with the Urban District Council of Willesden. I have served for some time on that body. I know that the Middlesex County Council delegates powers to the local authority. When in 1898 special powers were conferred upon the Middlesex County Council, 22 out of the 36 local authorities in Middlesex willingly assented to the principle of the Middlesex County Council delegating its powers to the local authorities. Until now that principle has worked quite
smoothly, and I hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been prepared to suggest, by way of meeting local authorities throughout the country who are making demands which are more extreme than the proposals in Clause 29, proposals somewhat on the lines of those operating in connection with the Middlesex County Council.
I feel convinced that local authorities would jump at such proposals, and that we should smooth out a great number of the difficulties with which we are confronted at the present time. I think it is advisable that this Committee should be prepared to take a wide rather than a. parochial view. It is beyond question that the county council should be the authority. Take the question of the building lines in connection with the main roads. There should be one authority responsible for those building lines; otherwise you are going to have very much wider roads in some areas than you have in other areas. Stress has been laid on the economies which would be effected by permitting the county council to be the authority for raising loans for road improvements and for the construction of bridges. That is a point which should be carefully considered by the Minister in charge of this Bill. If you permit the various urban authorities to have the power or the right to determine their building lines, that will in no sense follow the lines of economy but will follow the lines of the greatest lack of economy. No case has been made out this afternoon for the proposals suggested in this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman advanced no reason for it. His argument was that as certain conditions obtain to-day it is desirous to meet the case by endeavouring to follow the line of least resistance. That is not statesmanship. The House ought not to face the problem in connection with roads by following the line of least resistance. I hope that before we take the vote on the Clause, we shall have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that he is prepared to reconsider the Clause in the light of the arguments which have been advanced, and endeavour to meet the situation more in respect to the position that obtains in the County of Middlesex,
and the counties immediately adjoining the County of London or the Metropolitan area.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: May I on behalf of the non-county borough which I have the privilege to represent support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker). My right hon. Friend said that we ought to take a national view of the matter. I agree. I take it that the national view of the matter is contained in the question as to whether the necessary work is well and efficiently done. We are told that a large number of these small urban districts and non-county boroughs are doing their work inefficiently. I maintain that the contrary is the case, and that all through the country the work done on their highways and main streets by urban districts and non-county boroughs is efficiently done. The non-county boroughs feel very strongly the withdrawal by this Bill of the rights which they now possess. Why is the arbitrary number of 20,000 population fixed? It is well known that there are boroughs with over 20,000 population who do not do their work efficiently. With respect to the desire to see the county councils in control, I agree that the county councils ought to have general supervision over the highways in the counties, and I suggest that a way out of the difficulty would be the acceptance of the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton)—In page 26, line 24, at the end, to insert the words:
Where an urban district has a population under 20,000 according to the last census for the time being, the county council may represent to the Minister of Transport that it is undesirable that the council of the district shall continue to perform the functions of maintaining and repairing the county roads in their district, and shall at the same time transmit a copy of their representation to the district council. On any such representation the Minister of Transport, after considering the observations of the district council, may make an order that as from the first day of April next after the date thereof the district council shall cease to discharge the said functions, and those functions shall vest in the county council in like manner as if the district council had made no claim under sub-section (1) of this Section.
Provided that, if the population of the district is found by the Registrar-General's preliminary report on any subsequent census to exceed 20,000, the district council
may claim to exercise the functions of maintenance and repair of the county roads within their district and thereupon the foregoing provisions of this Section shall apply as if the claim had been made thereunder.
There seems to be some doubt as to the interpretation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Putting aside the doubt as to the recommendations, would not my right hon. Friend consider with favour the proposals contained in the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for. Cambridge? If that Amendment were accepted, the county councils Would be left in the position of supervisors of the roads in the counties. If a small authority in the county was known to be doing its work inefficiently that Amendment, if accepted, would give the county council power to interfere and to apply to the Minister for an Order. I suggest that that is the best solution of the difficulty. I strongly protest against the withdrawal from the small authorities and non-county boroughs, who are doing their work efficiently, of the powers which they now possess.

Mr. OLIVER: Like most hon. Members representing county constituencies, I have received the customary letters from the urban district councils in my constituency. I have an open mind upon this matter, and I listened to the Minister of Transport with great interest while he was trying to give the reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted. I had not the advantage of hearing the observations made by the Mover of the Amendment, but I was very disappointed when I heard the Minister of Transport give his reasons why the Amendment ought to be rejected. The only point as far as I could gather was whether the small authorities of populations of under 20,000 were truly representative bodies. I should have thought that the Minister of Transport, being interested in the roads, would have made the test as to whether the authority is efficiently carrying out the work delegated to it in respect of the roads.
One would almost imagine from the statements made by the Minister of Transport that the efficient authorities were authorities of over 20,000, and that the inefficient authorities were the authorities with populations under that number. I have the advantage of knowing very efficient authorities of under
20,000, and inefficient authorities of over 20,000. According to the Clause, it is not a question of efficiency but purely a question of numbers. I should have liked the Minister of Transport to have laid it down quite clearly that if the respective authorities are doing their duty he will permit them to carry on with their work. I am not satisfied, and I am sure that other bon. Members are not altogether satisfied, that the only efficient body in local government is the county council. I recognise that there must be some limit somewhere, but when we some to the point of discussing whether we are to permit authorities with a certain population to maintain certain functions, I should have expected the Minister of Transport not to place too much importance upon numbers but, first and foremost, to have decided the matter on the test to the efficient discharge of the duties which the authorities are called upon to perform.

Mr. HURD: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend has said. I wish we could get the discussion back to the basis of efficiency. Where is there any case of inefficiency in regard to a large number of the urban districts which are now managing these matters? No case was made before the Royal Commission on that ground. These people are, naturally and properly, jealous of their local management of local affairs, and I cannot see why there should be any disturbance of the present arrangement, unless there is a real reason for that disturbance. The Minister of Health knows perfectly well that one of our greatest difficulties in trying to bring about harmony is the impression which prevails in large sections of the country that the Minister of Health is rather anxious to submerge the smaller local authorities. There is no doubt about that impression. A recent incident like the Rural Housing Act, 1926, and the way in which the Ministry of Health have dealt with it, has strengthened the impression that the Ministry of Health is intent, as far as it can, on putting the smaller local authorities into a position of less importance.
It would be a thousand pities if that policy were adopted, because the strength of the local life of England lies in the widespread impression among those who take part in the work of these small authorities that they are doing some real service to the country, and they should
be encouraged to do it as well as they possibly can. They have the local knowledge. I should like to know the view of the Minister of Health on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge. In a case of inefficiency, an urban district council or a council of any other district ought not to manage roads or anything else; the power ought to be taken away from it, and the same condition ought to apply in the case of a county, although I do not know how it could be applied. If we are to get this Bill working with any sense of harmony, we ought to have regard to the desire of the urban districts to retain the power which they have already, and not to regard it as unreasonable if that desire is based upon the question of efficiency.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I cannot speak as the chairman of a county council or as the chairman of an urban district council, but I desire to put forward the views of the man in the street and in the interests of economy and efficiency to congratulate the Minister on hardening his heart and not listening to the pleadings on behalf of the urban councils. I was, however, astounded at some other portions of the speech made by the Minister of Transport. That speech seemed to indicate that the Government at the present time have no real policy in so far as road matters are concerned. In the last few years the trend of development has been towards the grouping of the actual control of the roads in the hands of the county councils, and the delegation of the execution of that policy to the urban district councils, thus following out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission recommended the delegation of the execution of the work to the urban councils, and not the control of policy.
Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that he may not perhaps have realised the full import of the matter as reflected in Clause 20, because I am certain that the Government do not wish to reverse their present policy in regard to the roads. I am sure that I am expressing their real intention when I say that the Government wish to concentrate the control and development of roads in as few hands as possible, and to delegate the execution of that work wherever it may best be done. If they study Clause 29, I am
sure that they will find that they are, in fact, reversing that policy. The Clause, as drafted, allows the urban district councils to claim for a main or a classified road, and to have those roads vested in themselves. The effect if this will be to deprive, not only the county councils, but the Minister himself of a considerable amount of control which he now exercises, not only on the classified and main roads, but also upon the arterial roads and county bridges. The Bill gives permission to the urban councils to obtain the vesting of these roads in themselves. Hitherto, although they have had that right they have not exercised it, because it has not been to their advantage to do so. But this Bill, as it is now drafted, will make urban district councils want to get the roads into their own hands, and if they obtain their wish, there will be many different authorities operating on quite short sections of our main and arterial roads. On the Uxbridge Road, in which I take some interest, one authority is operating, but if the Bill passes there will be no less than 10.
The reason why urban district councils will want to get the roads into their own hands will be found in the definition of improvements clause. Previously in the improvement clause the question of widening a road came under the head of improvements, and if an urban district council wished to widen their road, they have had to get the county council to agree and obtain a grant of money from the county council, but never more than 50 per cent. The remainder the urban council had to find itself. If they gave up their road to the county council, then the county council provided the whole of the money. Now under these provisions the whole of that money will be given by the county council in any event, and the reasons which previously urged urban district councils to allow the county council to take over the development of the roads will actuate in the opposite direction, and you will obtain, not only 61 local authorities we have to-day, but 240. I am perfectly certain that it cannot be the right hon. Gentleman's intention to split up the control of our main and arterial roads in that fashion, when we have such a record of accidents as we have to-day. In the last six years the number of motor cars on the roads has
doubled, and it is likely to double again in the next six years. It is necessary to develop our roads for the through traffic, and surely it is unwise to introduce a Bill at this stage which will multiply the number of authorities controlling these roads.
The Minister may say, what does that matter. It matters in this way. If an urban district council obtains the control of the roads in its own hands they can prevent the widening not only of the main roads but of the arterial roads as well. The Minister would not have the power to force an urban council to widen a road beyond the width which the urban council thought fit if the power was vested in urban councils, and I suggest to the Committee that we are taking a somewhat grave step if we pass the Clause in its present form. I think the Minister might consider deleting the last four lines of the first sub-section of the Clause when we get to the Report stage. If he did that he would obtain what the Royal Commission recommended—namely, the delegation of the duties to urban district councils but he would retain in his own hands, and for county councils, the question of the vesting roads. I suggest that it is to the advantage of the Bill that the last four lines of the first Sub-section of the Clause should be deleted.

Mr. MACKINDER: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us any evidence that urban district councils have been inefficient? The best argument the Minister could bring in support of this Clause would be evidence that the urban district councils are not competent to do this work. I suppose most hon. Members will speak from the point of view of their own district. I can speak from the point of view of the West Riding of Yorkshire, where there is very heavy traffic; and I suggest that in a district like that that the local authority is the likeliest body to know what kind of road is needed in a particular district. In the division I represent there are a number of local authorities and they are all efficient. They have all the necessary machinery and tools, the men, and the surveyors, all trained men, to do this work, and why in the name of all that is wonderful the right hon. Gentleman
should take away from these people the right to do work, for which they have local knowledge and local experience, I cannot imagine. I can imagine the West Riding County Council saying to a place like Yeadon: "You must have a macadam road." The local people are quite certain that the district does not need a macadam road; that its requirements would he met by a road paved with setts.
There are several places I know where the county council has come right into the centre of the area of the local authority and taken one strip of road of about a quarter of a mile, all the other roads being looked after by the local authority. The county council look after this one strip of road. That is uneconomic and I feel that where a local authority is doing this work economically and well they ought to be allowed to continue to do it. Unless the Minister can give some evidence that local authorities have mismanaged this work, have not put down the proper type of roads which the locality needs and the industries in the locality desire, he has no right to take away from them the power to do work which they are best equipped to perform.

Captain CAZALET: Although I represent a constituency in which there are several urban district councils with a population of under 20,000 I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment. It is true that these urban district councils have been increasing my postbag during the last few days advocating that some Amendment on these lines should be accepted; I believe it would not be for the good of the country as a whole, or make for efficiency and economy. It would only lead to much greater friction between local bodies. Everyone is agreed that, so far as the county main roads are concerned, the fewer authorities there are the better. I know that the right hon. Gentleman had a difficult task in deciding exactly upon the population of 20,000 as the area which should be allowed to retain the management of its own roads. After all, no other figure would have pleased everybody, and although he has given this concession, which I have no doubt has been well considered, I am doubtful whether in the long run he is wise to fix it at 20,000.
The main consideration which seems to have animated those who have taken part in the Debate is the idea that county councils are most unreasonable: that, on the one hand, they are grossly extravagant or, on the other hand, that they are extremely mean. County councils, I believe, are as much interested in the efficient and economic government of the county as we are in the efficient and economic government of the country, and the point of this Clause is that it gives to county councils the chance of eliminating those urban districts which are inefficient. I have no doubt that county councils will be reasonable. Take the case of Somersetshire, where to-day the county council delegates to rural areas the duty of maintaining not only rural roads but main roads as well. I see no reason why county councils will not decide that where an urban district or a borough has proved itself efficient that it will continue to delegate to it exactly the same rights as they have exercised in the past. The urban district councils in my own area are efficient and I see no reason why the county council should deny them the same rights over the roads which they have exercised in the past. I do not believe the county council in my constituency, or in any other county, will prove itself unreasonable in this matter.

Mr. TOWNEND: The remarks of the last speaker might lead one to imagine that the objections taken to this Clause by bon. Members on this side reflect on the county councils. I want to assure him that that is not the basis of our opposition at all. We are prepared to pay tribute to county councils whenever necessary, and there are occasions when we do. Our objection is because we believe that the Minister will be well advised in the case of efficient councils, who are operating now, to let well alone. Their efficiency cannot be determined by the arbitrary figure submitted in this Clause.
I want to submit one point in relation to this definite figure of 20,000, which is very important in this discussion. I do not know how it is going to operate in the area in which I live. There is an urban district council with 18,000 inhabitants on one side of the main Chester Road and on the other side another urban
council with 8,000 inhabitants. These two councils are monuments of efficiency in local government; they are second to none in the whole country. They are not urban in the true sense of the word. The 18,000 area is mostly of a residential character, and they are so up to date that they have provided themselves with all the amenities of life, baths, library and town hall, and enjoy the tramway system of a neighbouring large town. Their work cannot be questioned, their efficiency cannot be questioned. The roads over which they have responsibility are some of the finest in the country, carrying the heaviest traffic which passes into the county of Cheshire, and I submit that the right of an area to control the highways within the district ought not to be determined in the simple arithmetical way laid down in the Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman should pay a little more regard to the arguments which have been submitted to him than apparently he has up to the moment.
6.0 p.m.
There is another point which has been emphasised already by others. Because of the importance of the work that this area has been compelled to do in days gone by, they have provided themselves with an equipment that is equal to doing all the work that the county council can do. That aspect of the question certainly ought to be reviewed. But the main objection that we have to the statement that even in these well-equipped areas the county council can delegate to them the power to carry on the work that they have been doing, is that in the Bill the option lies with the county council. It is all very well to tell us that the county council can do this, but our main objection is that the county council can say that the smaller authority shall not do the work. There has not been a sufficient case made out to justify the Minister in asking the Committee to support the Government upon the very arbitrary figure of 20,000.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have had a somewhat long discussion, which, however, has been a useful one, because it has covered a very wide field. It has covered not merely the particular Amendment under discussion, but has ranged over the whole principle of the question of what authority should be responsible for these main roads. We have had two
distinct and opposite currents of thought in the Committee. One is the current of thought of those who are taking their stand upon the dignity of the Poor Law authorities, and who claim that those authorities should not only not be deprived of any rights which they have now, but that they should be given further rights which would enable them to have the control practically of these main roads.

Mr. MACKINDER: It is not their dignity, but their efficiency.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is the other current of thought which says that the nature of the traffic has changed very materially in the last generation, or less than that, and that the roads which we are now discussing are no longer roads merely of local interest, but are through roads which carry a great deal of traffic that does not concern only the people who live along the route itself, but is destined for some place. a long or short distance away. They say that, these being through roads, it is only reasonable and logical that there should be some sort of standardisation of their width and method of construction. I must say that, so far us the logic of the case goes, my sympathies are entirely with those who take the larger view. It seems to me very clear that the argument that where you have a through road carrying through traffic, you do not want to have it, if you can avoid it, in the hands of a great number of local authorities. At one time I took a great interest in the question of inland waterways. One of the points that were continually impressed on me in any study of the position of inland waterways was that the thing which more than anything else caused their stagnation was the extraordinary multiplicity of ownership. This is 'an analogous case.
If we were starting right at the beginning with a clear field and no authority had demanded any rights before in the matter, I think there would be a great deal to be said for the point of view put by the hon. Baronet the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton). But we are not starting with a clear field. We are starting with a field which is occupied by the Act of 1888, and I would point out that there are really two forms of authority with which we are concerned. One is the form of authority which arises
out of the claim made under the appropriate Section of the Act of 1888, and if the claim could be substantiated then the authority would be the highway authority. But the other case is the case of delegation. In that case it is the county council which remains the highway authority, but it hands over the actual execution of the work to another authority. It really is not a question here of efficiency. A good deal has been said about that. It has been suggested that if an authority is efficient, it ought not to be deprived of the right of doing the work. That is not the point. The point is whether it should be deprived of the right to be the highway authority. It is not deprived of the right to do the work; on the contrary the power of delegation still remains, and if the authority is really efficient, the county council will delegate the work to it. Therefore all the arguments which have been addressed to the Committee on the basis that the Bill would deprive the urban district of the power of carrying out the actual work of maintenance and repair, is based on a misapprehension.

Mr. TOWNEND: On a point of Order. Where does the option lie?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): That is not a point of order, and if it were it should be addressed to me.

Mr. TOWNEND: I was under the impression that I was addressing my question to you. Will the Minister say whether the option lies with the county council?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not a point of order, but if the hon. Member will look at Clause 31 he will see where the option lies. Provided it is agreed that you are not going to deprive all the urban districts of all the rights that they now have under the Act of 1888, where are you to draw the line and how are you to draw the line? "Urban district" in this connection includes non-county boroughs, and therefore includes some important places which will have a population approaching 75,000. Whatever might be the logic of the case or whatever might be the case with a clear field, it is apparent that the taking away of a right that they now possess, from great bodies of that kind, is something which is practically beyond the range of our consideration. A good deal of criticism has been directed to the figure of 20,000. The criti-
cism is a criticism which might apply to any population. If you have the line at 20,000 you might have the case of a district with a population of 19,999. Of course it is very ridiculous that a difference of one person should mean so much. But why did my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk sign a report which did draw the line at 20,000?

Sir E. TURTON: For the purpose of unanimity and vagueness.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend secured unanimity, but not vagueness, and he destroyed the arguments he has used to-day by signing that report. The figure in the Bill is that which was picked out by the Royal Commission. There are urban districts which now possess these powers and ought not to possess them. I am not talking of efficiency. There are urban districts which are far too small to be able to carry out the duties. You have to draw the line somewhere. Everyone agrees that some of the authorities are too small, and if we take 20,000 it is because that is the recommendation of the Royal Commission. You might have a figure of 30,000 or one under 20,000. Since we have had a figure upon which all those gentlemen on the Royal Commission, who represented all the various classes of local authorities, agreed, I do not see what is the use of protesting that we ought to take some other figure. I hope that the Committee will now come to a decision for I think -we have pretty well exhausted the subject. I would finally call attention to the fact that we have done something to guard against the difficulties mentioned by one hon. Member and have done so in an Amendment which he will see on the Paper—in Clause 29, page 26, line 24, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that as respects such county roads as may be declared by the Minister of Transport to be roads towards the construction and improvement of which advances have been made to the county council under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and to be roads the maintenance and repair of which should, having regard to the best means of promoting economy and efficiency in highway administration, remain vested in the county council, the date as from which the right of maintenance and repair claimed under this
section shall be exerciseable shall be deferred until such date as the Minister may determine.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Will urban councils who have already given up their right and vested it in the county council be again able to claim that right?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the case of any urban district having population of more than 20,000, it would be able to claim under the Bill.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) as to amalgamations that might take place between smaller urban districts with a population of less than 20,000? Will they come into the scheme afterwards?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is an Amendment on the Paper which deals with that point—in Clause 29, page 26, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) in the case of an order being made constituting a new urban district or adding an area to an existing urban district, in consequence whereof the urban district becomes an urban district of which the population exceeds 20.000 according to the last census for the time being, within 12 months after the date when the order takes effect.

Mr. J. JONES: I hope we shall be able to get away from parish pump politics in considering this matter. Transport is becoming more and more a national question and road transport under modern conditions is particularly important to the whole country. A revolution has taken place similar to that which took place on the inception of the railways, but if every little local district which considers itself "the only pebble on the beach" so to speak, is to have the right to claim special privileges, then the development of transport is likely to be retarded by their selfishness. London has its special interests as well as the country districts. West Ham has its own peculiar interests and it will be a county borough under the new dispensation. But I think that those of us who represent that district, would be not only selfish but unpatriotic if we sought to place our case against the case of the whole country. We hope that eventually we shall get the new dock scheme through. We have been trying for 30 years and we are now promised the possibility of the scheme reaching
fruition. I trust it is not a case of "living in hope and dying in despair." As long as we have you, Sir, in the Chair, we can still say that we have hope—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see the application of this argument to the question of whether this provision should apply only to certain urban districts, or to all urban districts.

Mr. JONES: It was a personal transgression for which I apologise. What we want in this matter is a national scheme and any local authority which seeks to stand in the way of a great national development of this kind, is adopting a selfish point of view. Let us, by all means, consider any objections which they may have to offer but we ought to deal with the matter as a national scheme. If, as we are told, this Bill effects a revolution in local government, let us make the best we can of it, and, if we all do our best, then the best can do no more. But we do not want to see road transport development being hindered by a mere handful of people in a certain county—

Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1928.
2. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1928.
3. Electricity (Supply) Act, 1928.
4. Public Works Loans Act, 1928.
5. Western Highlands and Islands (Transport Services) Act, 1928.
6. Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1928.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1928.
8. Bognor Urban District Council Act, 1928.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'a' in line 26, stand part of the Clause."

Mr. J. JONES: We, on these benches, do not agree with the idea of circumscribing a great national effort so far as transport is concerned. We have objected to this Bill from the beginning in various aspects, but so far as transport is concerned we are agreed that co-operation is essential, and that no local authority ought to have a right to prevent great developments taking place. Under the Bill at present every authority has the right to make objections if it considers it desirable. I hope the Minister of Transport will give us some information with regard to the great dock scheme that is under consideration and will be able to tell us something hopeful—

The CHAIRMAN: I should have to stop him if he tried.

Mr. JONES: I want to say that we are supporting the Minister in his desire to have a great national scheme, providing local authorities get proper protection, but no local authority ought to be allowed to stand in the way of development in the interests of the people. Stoke Poges ought not to stand in the way of Westminster Abbey. Stoke Poges is perfectly historical, it has a national reputation, but it cannot stand in the way of Westminster Abbey and the House of Commons.

Mr. MARCH: I think all roads should be under the county authorities. We have heard a good deal from hon. Members opposite with regard to the efficiency of the urban district councils, but they have never said anything about the county councils' efficiency, and anybody who has travelled on the roads must admit that the county council roads are far superior to the urban council roads. The object of this Clause is to get these urban council roads developed in proportion to the county council roads. Some of the urban councils have not yet awakened to know that there is any road work to do, and our friends of Essex who have been
praising the Essex urban councils have only just started to improve their roads. There is a great deal to be done there which could better be done by the county council. Go to Colchester and get on the way towards Harwich, and see the delay that has been caused there by the want of initiative on the part of the urban councils. They have not started taking off the corners in many instances. They all have different views as to what is necessary.
The main thing about the urban district councils has been s. d., and they have been trying to save money, leaving the roads to look after themselves. I think the Government are right in bringing forward this Clause, and I do not see why they should not have included in it a provision to the effect that the county councils should cover all the main roads, not allowing even the urban councils with 20,000 population to have charge at all. Anyone who travels the roads now can easily tell the difference in the substance of the surface of the roads. You can almost tell one urban council from another, and immediately you get off the county council roads you can tell that you are on an urban council road, because it is made of a material much cheaper than that found on the county council roads. I support this Clause, not because it goes all the way that we should like, but because it goes a proportion of the way to help bring about more uniformity than exists now in regard to the roads.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I hope the hon. Members opposite who put down the Amendment, having had the matter discussed, will not press it to a Division. If they do, quite a number of Members on this side intend to vote against it. I wish to ask the Minister of Transport if he will be good enough to answer a question that has been put by one or two Middlesex Members, as to the unique position in which the county of Middlesex would be placed under this Clause. I notice on the Order Paper that the Minister has already partly met the position of Middlesex in regard to arterial roads, but I am sure that I shall be speaking on behalf of the Middlesex Members of all parties if I say that we should be very much obliged if the Minister could give us a promise to keep an open mind in
regard to the unique position of Middlesex, and see before the Report stage whether anything can be done to meet, that position.

Colonel ASHLEY: The particular circumstances of Middlesex raise an important aspect of the question. There is an Amendment on the Paper in my name and in that of other hon. Members which would, to a considerable extent, meet the position of Middlesex and also of Hertfordshire and other home counties. If this Bill passed in the form in which it was introduced, they would undoubtedly find themselves deprived of a very large proportion of the roads which they now maintain. I cannot go into the Amendment now, but broadly it provides that certain by-passes and main arteries which have been constructed with the help of the Road Fund and maintained by the county council will continue to be maintained by the county council. As to the special point in regard to Middlesex raised by the hon. Member opposite, I am not in a position to say anything definite now. The question has only recently been brought to my notice—three or four days ago—but I can promise consideration of the further point between now and the Report stage. What will emerge from that consideration I cannot say, but I will give it consideration, and I hope that may somewhat allay the fears, not only of the hon. Member opposite, but of the other hon. Members for Middlesex.

Mr. B. SMITH: The Minister will know that the London Traffic Advisory Committee have had the very greatest difficulty with borough councils, all of which will exceed the 20,000 limit, in the creation of alternative routes, whereas if the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) receives favourable consideration from the Minister, it might put the power definitely in the hands of the larger authority, so that work which has been held up for many years could be proceeded with, thus giving greater fluidity to London's traffic, coupled with the fact that we should have only one authority to deal with, and not many opposing authorities as at present.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will the Minister of Transport answer this question? Under the Bill, will a borough with a
population under 20,000 have the option to apply to the county council for power to continue to maintain its main roads, and will the county council have the power to delegate that right to the borough?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly. If an urban district council applies to a county council that it should delegate to that urban district council the care and maintenance of its classified roads, then it is entirely in the option of the county council whether or not it should grant

it. When it is over 20,000 the claim is a matter of right; when it is under 20,000 the delegation is at the option of the county council.

Mr. HURD: With no appeal to the Minister?

Colonel ASHLEY: No.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'a' in line 26, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 128.

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[6. 42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dawson, Sir Philip
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Alexander, E. E. (Ley ton)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Alien, Sir J. Sandeman
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Apsley, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wlllrld W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Loder, J. de V.


Atkinson, C.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston s. M.)
Lougher, Lewis


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardifl, South)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Balniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumley, L. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Barnett. Major Sir Richard
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macintyre, Ian


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fenby, T. D,
Macmillan, Captain H.


Bennett, A. J.
Fielden, E. B.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.


Berry, sir George
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bethel, A.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Brass. Captain W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
March, S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Ganzonl, Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gates, Percy
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Brittain. Sir Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Broad, F. A.
Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville. Sir Reginald J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Buchan, John
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hanbury, C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bullock. Captain M.
Harris, Percy A.
Nuttall, Ellis


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Owen, Major G.


Carver, Major w. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pennefather, Sir John


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Penny, Frederick George


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J,
Pliditch. Sir Philip


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hills. Major John Waller
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fltzroy
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chapman, Sir S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Price, Major C. W. M.


Christie. J. A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)
Radford, E. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rains, Sir Walter


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ramsden, E.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K,
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Remer, J. R.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ti'y)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ropner, Major L.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Samuel. A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Curzon, Captain viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lamb, J. O.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Guttave D.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lansbury, George
Savery, S. S.


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Tinne, J. A.
Wiggins, William Martin


Shepperson, E. W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Sinclair, Major St. A. (Caithness)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Viant, S. P.
Withers, John James


Storry-Deans, R,
Waddington, R.
Womersley, W, J.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Strauss, E. A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Streattelld, Captain S. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wragg, Herbert


Tasker, R. Inlgo.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wright. Brig-General W. D.


Templeton, W. P.
Wayland, Sir William A.



Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wells, S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harney, E. A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Amnion, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Hudderifield)
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bellamy, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silver-town)
Smith-Carington, Neville w.


Bromneld, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Somervlile, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Kirk wood. D.
Stephen. Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse. w. S.
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Longbottom, A. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Townend, A. E.


Day, Harry
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Dennison, R.
Morris, R. H.
Wallhead, Richard C


Duncan, C.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Warne. G. H.


Edge, Sir William
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Oliver, George Harold
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Palin, John Henry
Wellock, Willred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Paling, W.
Welsh. J. C


Forrest, W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.



Hill, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St.Ives)
Mr. Looker and Mr. T. Williams.


Hardle, George D.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Question, "That Clauses 32 to 38 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Captain MACMILLAN: I beg to move, in page 25, line 26, to leave out the word "a," and to insert instead thereof the words "an estimated."
Although this Amendment raises a small point, it is one of some substance. The question under the Clause is whether an urban district may or may not make a claim, and the deciding factor is that it has to have a population exceeding 20,000 according to the last census. There are a considerable number of urban dis-
tricts which were under 20,000 in 1921, and which have reached that figure now, and the object of this Amendment is to secure that the question whether or not they may claim the rights under this Clause will depend on whether on the appointed day they have an estimated population of over 20,000. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon the Amendment, for it will have the effect that we shall deal with the actual present population figures, and not with the figures as they existed in the census of 1921.

Colonel ASHLEY: I confess that there seems to me a great deal in this Amendment. The last census was taken in 1921, and there must be a very substantial number of urban districts which were under 20,000 in that year, and are now well over 20,000, and it seems hard that they should, be debarred from getting the right of claiming, and have to wait for two years, until 1931. The Government accept the substance of the Amendment, but, we cannot arrange that the estimated population for 1929 should be taken. The position is that the estimate of the Registrar-General for the previous year does not come out until July or August of the succeeding year. The appointed day in this case is 1st April, 1930, so that the estimated population will have to be that of the year 1928. As regard the periods afterwards, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health informs me that he has in contemplation a five-year census instead of a 10-year census. If that be so, that will enable the revision to take place every five years instead of every 10 years. If my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment, I will, before the Report stage, have it put in proper order.

Captain MACMILLAN: I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, and I wish to thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for the way he has met my point.

Mr. B. SMITH: Are we to understand that there is to be a quinquennial. census in respect of the general census?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to move, in page 25, line 29, to leave out the words "exercise the functions of maintenance and repair of," and to insert instead thereof the words "be the highway authority as respects."
The purpose of this Amendment may be shortly stated to be to give an urban district council which has claimed their right to exercise highway functions under this portion of the Bill, the full powers of a highway authority, and, in fact, to constitute them a highway authority in respect of the roads which they have to look after, owing to their having made this claim. Unless they get the full powers of a highway authority, they will not get some of these powers under the
Bill, and it is necessary, if they are to exercise any functions whatever over these roads, that they should have all the rights of a highway authority which they had before in respect to the work which they are doing. I do not want to go into those rights in detail, but they comprise the right of receiving notice in respect of the breaking up of roads, and numerous other rights of a kindred nature. The question whether they should not have these rights is one that is worthy of the consideration of the Minister.

Colonel ASHLEY: The Government cannot accept this Amendment. On general merits, as the County Council finds the money, they should remain the highway authority. It is true that the roads vest in these urban district councils, and they have the privilege of maintaining and repairing and improving the roads, but as the County Council is the authority that has to find the money, I think that it ought to have the honour, such as it is, of being the highway authority. We do not propose to change the principles that have existed since 1888, and therefore I can see no reason to accept the Amendment, and to change what is now the present practice.

Mr. LOOKER: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that the urban districts which make the claim, will have all the powers that they ought to have over roads which are covered by that claim, in order to enable them to exercise their functions in a proper way?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, certainly. Unless I thought so, I should not resist the Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would accept the Amendment if the words were altered, and if it were made a little wider. What is going to happen if local authorities want to alter their roads, by widening them for example? Will they have any power whatsoever If the Minister cannot see his way lo make them the highway authority, will he see between now and the Report stage if he can alter these words so as to meet the wishes of the urban authorities and give them powers to widen for instance?

The CHAIRMAN: I think this would come more appropriately under the next Clause.

Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend need pot be under any fear that the urban authorities are in any way badly treated. If he will turn to the Clause, he will see that it says:
and the road shall vest in that council"—
that is to say the urban council—
and for the purpose of the maintenance repair and improvement of any such road that council shall have the same functions as if the road were an ordinary road vested in them.
I submit that the people who have the power to maintain, repair and improve the road have all reasonable powers.

Lord APSLEY: What power of control will the county councils have over the urban district councils if they do not approve of alterations in the road, or of the materials which are being used, or of the method which is being adopted by the urban district councils? Can they say they will withhold the money if they do not approve?

Colonel ASHLEY: If we get on fast enough to deal with Clause 30, the answer will be given to my Noble Friend.

Mr. B. SMITH: If there are two authorities, one for the maintenance of the road and the other for the other functions, and a, person is injured through lack of maintenance, which of them will be responsible?

Colonel ASHLEY: That will be a matter for the courts.

Amendment negatived

Sir E. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 25, line 30, after the word "road," to insert the words "(excluding any county bridges thereon)."
It is an obviously necessary Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY: I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. Ho will see that later on I have an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the point.

Sir E. TURTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 26, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) in the case of an order being made constituting a new urban district or adding an area to an existing urban district, in consequence whereof the urban district becomes an urban district of which the population exceeds 20,000 according to the last census for the time being, within 12 months after the date when the order takes effect.
This is an Amendment which I hope will meet with the approval of the Committee. It deals with a point which has been raised by two hon. Members opposite. If the Committee will turn to Clause 29 they will see that this claim must be made, according to subsection (2), firstly in the case where the population of the urban district exceeds 20,000 according to the census of 1921 and, secondly, where the population of the urban district is found by the Registrar-General's preliminary Report on any subsequent census to exceed 20,000. This Amendment provides for a third case. I hope this explanation will satisfy the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 24, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that as respects such county roads as may be declared by the Minister of Transport to he roads towards the construction and improvement of which advances have been made to the county council under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and to be roads the maintenance and repair of which should having regard to the best means of promoting economy and efficiency in highway administration, remain vested in the county council, the date as from which the right of maintenance and repair claimed under this Section shall be exercisable shall be deferred until such date as the Minister may determine.
I beg to move the Amendment which was down in my name before the Minister yielded to the pressure of the back benches and added his name to it. It is an Amendment to except from the power of the urban district councils to run their own roads the arterial roads. That includes the county bridges which have been referred to. It is clear that an arterial road which passes through six different urban districts, as in the ease cited by an hon. Member to-night, would be a very uncomfortable road to travel on if it were kept up by six different
authorities at intervals and by the county councils in between. The same thing, which applies to Middlesex in that ease, applies to Hertfordshire in the case of one of the new roads that travels through Watford. Therefore, I suggest that the roads which are declared by the Minister of Transport to be arterial roads in this way as having been constructed by advances from the Government to the county council in recent years and in future years shall be excepted, but only in cases where the Minister agrees that it would be for efficiency and economy that that should be the case. If so, the way the Amendment is drafted is not so as to remove rights from the urban authorities, but simply to defer the day when their rights shall be exercised by them in respect of those roads. That is in itself a convenient way of dealing with the case. It does not take away rights, but at the same time it gives the Minister of Transport complete power in the matter.

Colonel ASHLEY: I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment. Indeed, it is considered almost vital by some of the county councils in the vicinity of London. Middlesex, for instance, might, unless the Amendment is passed, cease to be the highway authority in the proper sense of carrying out works on many of their roads owing to the fact that the whole of their area is covered by a network of urban councils and, if they exercise the right given to the large majority of them under this Bill of claiming their main roads, then few will be left to the county council. No one wants that. They are an efficient county council. To a lesser degree the malady would extend into Hertfordshire, Surrey and all the counties lying round the Metropolis where great works have been undertaken in the last few years by the road authorities with assistance from the Road Fund, to which works the urban authorities in the large majority of cases have not contributed a penny. The money has been almost entirely found by the ratepayers of the county council and by the Government. Therefore it seems to us it is not unfair in these cases, where the county councils found all or the majority of the money with the help of the Road Fund, that these roads, whether by-passes or main arteries of traffic, should be excluded from the ambit of the Clause and left in the charge
of the authorities who are so well able to deal with them. I do not see any hardship to the urban authorities who have not got charge of these roads. From the point of view of justice and also of efficiency and economy, this Amendment is perfectly right and should be supported.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 27, line 14, at the end, to add the words:
(6) For the purposes of this Section, the expression 'road' does not include county bridges.
This is the Amendment which I indicated would be moved when my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) moved his Amendment. This does not deal with any of the 'bridges which are brought within the jurisdiction of the urban councils by the Act of 1888, but it seeks to exclude from the operations of this Clause bridges which are termed county bridges which are being maintained by the county and have in many cases been maintained by the county for 100 or 150 years. It seems to us that it would be unfair that such bridges, which very often span a river separating two counties, bridges which are historical structures, which have always been looked after by the county authorities, should be taken away from the control of the county council. Therefore, I hope the Committee will agree to this Amendment and that these county bridges will remain as they are now.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 30.—(Contributions by county councils to county roads maintained by urban district councils.)

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to move, in page 27, line 19, after the word "payments," to insert the words "by quarterly instalments."
Under this Clause of the Bill the county council has to make contributions to the moneys expended by the district authorities, and the object of this Amendment is to make those contributions payable by quarterly instalments which, if I am accurately informed, is the practice followed in many instances
at the present time. Undoubtedly that would be for the convenience of district authorities, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY: This Clause is taken out of the Draft Road Traffic Bill which I circulated for consideration some 18 months ago and it was, I understand, an agreed Clause among the local authorities concerned. It corresponds also with the oonditions in the Act of 1888, but I have no particular objection myself either to quarterly payments of half-yearly payments or annual payments.

Sir E. TURTON: Half-yearly.

Colonel ASHLEY: I think the best thing to do would be for me to find out between now and the Report stage what is the general view of the various associations concerned, and I will undertake, if they will make up their minds, to do what they decide they wish to be done. I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Sir E. TURTON: I think it would be found more convenient if it were arranged that these payments should be made half-yearly, but I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SOMERVILLE:

In page 27, line 21, after the word "improvement," to insert the words "including widenings."

The CHAIRMAN: I think that for technical reasons this Amendment would hardly come in on the first Sub-section of the Clause.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Does the expression "improvement" include "widening"?

The CHAIRMAN: In Sub-section (1, a) it states that the county council shall make payments towards the cost of
any reasonable improvement connected with the maintenance and repair of the road.
While I think that the words "connected with the maintenance and re-
pair" would not include the widening, yet lower down in the Clause there is a reference to a contribution towards the expenses of improvement of a road
not being expenses in connection with the maintenance and repair of the road.
That presumably would be an improvement. I do not wish to shut out the hon. Member if some special point is raised, and I think the next Amendment would he in order.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 27, line 25, after the word "improvement," to insert the words "including widenings."
The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the county council should contribute to the cost of land necessary for widening a road. In some cases the county council refuse to contribute to the cost of the necessary land, and will make a contribution only to the road.

Colonel ASHLEY: I really think, in fact I am sure, that this Amendment is unnecessary, because the widening would clearly be an improvement; therefore these words are redundant and will give no greater strength to the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In a previous Clause I raised the point of whether "care and maintenance" included an improvement. I understand now that the county council will be empowered to make a contribution to the district authorities in respect of an improvement and widening scheme.

Mr. TOMLINSON: May I ask if the widening in this case would include the acquisition of land for the widening? I recall a case in an urban district with which I have been associated all my life, where the district council were widening a main road and the county council did not wish to incur any expenditure on the acquisition of land—on which there was a good deal of property—saying that this was properly an expenditure for the local authority. In another part of this Clause power is given to the Minister to determine to what extent an improvement is a local improvement, or whether it is necessary in the interest of the road. I remember that in the case to which I have referred the county first declined to make any contribution towards the cost of acquiring the property. This was valued at £4,000 or £5,000 and was in a
small urban district of which the assessable value was only £22,000. The county council were of opinion that it was a town's improvement. But when the circumstances were further explained to the main road committee and to the Road Board the opposite view was taken, and it was recognised that although it would lead to an improvement in the town it would not be necessary to undertake the improvement were it not for the through traffic along the road. I urge the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Major PRICE: I also would press the Minister to accept this Amendment. Sub-section (1, a) empowers the county council to
make annual payments towards the cost of the maintenance and repair, and any reasonable improvement connected with the maintenance and repair, of the road.
That is not any reasonable improvement which you may make to the road, but only a reasonable improvement in connection with the maintenance and repair of the road.

The CHAIRMAN: We are not considerign that Amendment. The Amendment we are considering is in Sub-section (1, b).

Major PRICE: I think the same argument applies to Sub-section (1, b), because there can be an improvement over which there would be very much dispute between the local authority and the county council as to whether it actually came within the ambit of this particular Sub-section or was outside it. If the words of the Amendment are included it would make the position quite clear, and we should avoid disputes.

Colonel ASHLEY: I rather think that hon. Members are discovering a mare's nest in this connection. If the Committee will turn to the definition Clause, on page 96 of the Bill, they will see that it states:
'Road' means a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, and includes bridges, and 'improvements' in relation to a road includes the fixing of a building line or improvement line under any enactment.
This definition shows that "improvement" has a very wide meaning in this connection. Under Sub-section (1, a) the annual payment is made towards the
reasonable improvement connected with the maintenance and repair.
that is, the usual repair and maintenance of a road; and then, in Sub-section
(1, b), we say that the county council shall contribute
towards the expenses of any improvement of the road, not being expenses in connection with the maintenance and repair of the road,
to such an extent As, failing agreement, may be determined by the Minister of Transport. That indicates that the expenses of the improvement of a road are additional to the ordinary maintenance and care, and undoubtedly, in my opinion, the term improvement would include widening, which is the point raised by my hon. Friend, and therefore I submit that the Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The Minister's reference to the definition Clause has convinced me that in my earlier interpellation I was Wrong. But I understand that the fixing of a building line does not necessarily mean the actual work of widening the road. The Minister, I gather, is entirely in agreement with the views advanced by hon. Members opposite and upon this side of the House, and I do riot think it would do the Bill any harm if he gave way on this occasion —he does it so gracefully that we like to see him do it—And he would make certain that the Bill does what is wanted by hon. Members in every quarter of the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a well-known Am principle that you should never put into a Bill words which are unnecessary. The result of putting in unnecessary words is, almost invariably, to create confusion afterwards. We are advised that the word "improvement" in this particular Clause does include widening, and I think the Committee can be satisfied that the Clause does do what it is desired that it should do, and therefore we had better not complicate it by the addition of these words.

Mr. TOMLINSON: May I ask whether widening includes acquiring property for the purposes of the widening?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The Bill says the county council shall contribute towards the expenses, and the expenses of a widening must include the expense of acquiring land for the widening.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: After the assurance given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to move, in page 27, line 30, after the word "Transport," to insert the words
after holding if he considers it necessary a local inquiry.
The object of this Amendment is that the Minister may, if he considers it necessary, hold a local inquiry before determining the questions which fall to him to be determined. It will bring the Clause into line with Clause 39, Sub-section (1).

Colonel ASHLEY: I think it is quite unnecessary to insert words giving the Minister power to hold a local inquiry. If the hon. Member will turn to Clause 108, Sub.-section (2) he will see that the Minister of Transport is given power to hold inquiries for the purposes of this Act, including appeals to him thereunder
as if those purposes were purposes of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and Section 20 of that Act shall apply accordingly.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the Rouse of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting

CLAUSE 31.—(Delegation of road functions by county councils to district councils.)

Amendments made

In page 28, line 33, after the word "roads," insert the words "exclusive of county bridges."

In page 28, line 36, after the word "roads," insert the words "exclusive of county bridges."

In page 28, line 38, at the end, insert the words:

(c) all or any of the county bridges within the district or such part. of the district as is within the county.

In page 29, line 5, after the word "roads," insert the words "or county bridges."

In page 29line 36, leave out the words "one month." and insert instead thereof the
words "three months." — [colonel Ashley.]

Clauses 32 (Conditions and effect of delegation of functions), 33 (Power of county councils to act jointly with other local authorities in preparation or adoption of a town planning scheme), 34 (Power to combine councils for the purposes of town planning schemes), 35 (Power to constitute county council responsible authority), 36 (Power of district councils to relinquish functions to county council), 37 (Amendment of 15 Geo. 5. c. 16. s. 3) and 38 (Extent of Part III).

CLAUSE 39.—(First general review by county councils.)

Mr. DUNNICO: I beg to move, in page 34, line 23, to leave out the words "council of every county," and to insert instead thereof the word "Minister."
I hope the Minister will concede the object I have in view in moving this Amendment. Anyone with any knowledge of local government must, be compelled to admit that serious and drastic regulations for the alterations of local governing boundaries are long overdue. Some of our local boundaries are not only grotesque but subversive of civic interest and civic pride. It is quite true that a revision has taken place from time to time, but progress in this direction has been very slow. I think the great obstacles to getting a sound and sensible revision of any local boundary are the acute vested interests. When any proposal is put forward to get. a safe and sane local government unit, many of the best schemes are destroyed without receiving an impartial hearing. The object of my proposal it to take the poser from the county councils, and I am asking the Minister to consent to the appointment of a special commission of competent men and women who would bring an unbiased mind to deal with this problem. They would hear evidence, consider all the local, geographical and other factors, and then present their report to the Minister.
I think that, even from the point of view of the Ministry itself, the acceptance of this Amendment would be a good thing. I am convinced that the Minister's hands would be immeasurably strengthened if he received a report from a body of impartial persons, because such a report would be of more value than a, report from a county council which itself is often an interested party. I hope I shall not be accused of exaggerating when I say that I think there will be strained relations between urban councils and county councils in regard to many questions for some time to come.

Sir E. TURTON: No.

Mr. DUNNICO: The hon. Baronet the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) says "No," but you cannot deprive local authorities of vital powers without creating for a time some little feeling, and I am certain that it would be far better for the Minister to have a report from an impartial body of men who would review all the facts and give an impartial report. I ask the Minister to give full consideration to my Amendment. I am not asking him to accept this Amendment in any definite form, and I shall be satisfied if he will concede my point that a report of any readjustment of local boundaries should be prepared, not by the county councils but by a body of impartial persons.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): We have now reached that portion of the Bill which deals with the rearrangement of county districts in Part IV of the Bill. The general proposals contained in this Clause provide, mainly, that there shall be a general review by the county councils of the districts up and down the country. I think there is little or no controversy as regards the necessity for making this general review in the interests of good local government. I gather from the speech just made by the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment that he is not impressed with that argument. I think anyone who surveys the conditions of local government, and the recommendations made by the Onslow Commission, must agree that there are a very large number of small districts quite unable, for financial reasons alone, to undertake many of the very important local govern-
ment duties which fall upon them to-day. There is no question of deriding the position of small districts or decrying their work. The fact is that it is impossible for a large number of those districts to carry out their public duties. Under these circumstances, we are proposing that
The council of every county shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, after conferences with representatives of the councils of the several districts wholly or partly within the county, review the circumstances of all such districts.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) has had a good deal of experience in local government, and he is now making a proposal that this should be the duty of a body of persons, not being members of the county council, who should be appointed by the Minister of Health, Perhaps I may be allowed to say, without any personal allusion to the hon. Member, that I am surprised at that suggestion coming from the Labour benches. In the first place, it is not a practical proposal. I always understood that the last thing hon. Members opposite wanted to do was to appoint any public body, with no responsibility to the electorate, to interfere in the affairs of local government. The hon. Member's proposal is that a body with no connection with the council should be chosen by the Minister of Health. I ant glad to see that the hon. Member has such confidence in the Minister of Health that he should choose him to appoint the body to make this survey. I need not remind the hon. Gentleman that county councils are now the body to deal with alterations of urban, rural district, and parish boundaries, and that duty has been east upon them for a long time.

Mr. DUNNICO: But they have not done it.

Sir K. WOOD: At any rate, they have had that power for a long time. Our proposal was recommended by the Onslow Commission, upon which sat the representatives of all types of local authorities carrying on the work of local government in this country; and, not only the large counties, but also the small authorities, came to a willing conclusion that it was the county council that should be entrusted with this work. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in the last resort, under the proposals of the Government, after the council have made
their inquiries and carried out their review, the decision does in fact rest with the Minister of Health, subject to review by this House.
The many safeguards of the position of the small authorities, who can make representations to the county council or to the Minister of Health, secure that their views may be heard, and we ensure by this Clause an impartial review by a proper body of what should be done in the very urgent necessities of local government in the various districts up and down the country. I could not for a moment advise the Committee to take this duty out of the hands of the county councils in order to entrust it to a body who have no general responsibility for this kind of business. Having regard to the fact that the position and responsibility of the smaller authorities are amply safeguarded under the provisions of this Clause, I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I am not surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary trying to pass this subject off as a matter of no importance. The right hon. Gentleman said he was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) had such confidence in the Minister of Health. This Amendment does not mean that they have no confidence in the local authorities or the county council, but it does mean that the county council, in the very nature of things, cannot be an impartial body to negotiate the rearrangement of a boundary, because they would be inclined to look at the subject from the point of view of the county council, and the other local authorities would have their point of view. The Amendment is one of substance, and it means that some body competent to consider the question of the rearrangement of local government areas should be brought in to hear all sides and to obtain the views of the county councils, the rural councils, and the district councils within the county. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the words, in the first paragraph of Clause 39:
after conferences with representatives of the councils of the several districts wholly or partly within the county.
There are portions of some of these districts which are outside the county, so
that at present the scope of the provision is wider than the area of any given county; and it is very important that it should be wider than the area of the county. I want the Committee to be good enough to allow me to deal with this point for a few minutes, because there are several parts of the country where the utmost importance is attached to the making of as full provision as possible in this part of the Bill.
There are several industrial parts in the North of England and in the Midlands where that is so, but I want to use as my illustration a case which I know best, though it is typical of several other parts of the county. I refer to the South Wales coalfield. Almost without exception, for at least 10 years, and in many cases for 20 years, the local authorities, urban and rural, have been urging the appointment of a special Commission for the radical readjustment of local government areas throughout the South Wales coalfield, and that has been done because the ideal unit for local government involves a close community of interest, complete autonomy in local affairs, and an area not so big as to be unwieldy and not too small to be self-contained. This Bill, which has come after generations of effort in pursuit of that object, ought to aim at readjusting our units of local government in such a way as to get as near as possible to that ideal of a self-contained and self-governed local area. The nearest approach to it that we have made in our machinery of local government up to the present time is the county borough. May I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this very simple historical fact, that most of our county boundaries, like our parish and district boundaries, have been laid down automatically in accordance with the simplest means of demarcation, and that was done centuries ago. For instance, in South Wales, our counties as we know them—Glamorgan, Monmouth, Carmarthen, and so on—were created by Act of Parliament in the year 1535, and the line then taken as the easiest line for the county boundary was a suitable river bed. That was all right in those days, when population was very sparse, but, as the result of industrial development and increase of population, those boundaries, which were suitable to a sparse population, have become a
serious hindrance to efficiency in local government to-day.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to say that this seems to be rather an argument on the merits of the Clause. The only point that we are discussing here is whether this shall be done by a county council or by a Commission appointed by the Minister.

Mr. JONES: With all due respect, that is what I am getting at, but it requires some knowledge of the local areas concerned to realise that this is a point of substance. If I may illustrate it by one example, we have a classic case in South Wales in the Rhymney Valley. This is a valley about 20 miles long, divided by the River Rhymney. One side of it is in the county of Monmouth, and the other is in the county of Glamorgan. Hitherto the whole of that area, with its population of 120,000, has been divided into four areas administered by boards of guardians, two county council areas, seven urban district areas and two rural districts; and the result is that at present there is little civic spirit, there is a great deal of overlapping, and there are a great many separate authorities, with separate clerk-ships and so on. Nevertheless, the whole valley is ideally situated for being under one local authority if the watershed instead of the river bed were made the boundary. The South Wales coalfield is divided from east to west by about 14 main valleys, very steep and narrow, each with a few converging valleys coming into it, so that Nature herself has suggested to us the best boundaries to take, namely, the watersheds instead of the river beds.

The CHAIRMAN: Would not these considerations be present to the county council?

Mr. JONES: No, Sir, and for this reason: The Rhymney Valley is now in the area of two counties—

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member referred to a number of other valleys.

Mr. JONES: If you would be good enough to come with me to South Wales during the Recess, I should be able to show you these valleys, and how they extend into more than one county. I am limiting my illustration to this one, because here there are two county councils
in the same valley, the population is hopelessly divided by the existing boundary, and there is no provision in this Clause as it stands for putting that matter right. Practically all the local authorities of the valley are agreed upon what we call the unification of the valley, but there is no power in this Clause under which they can become unified. It is restricted, at the most, to unification of one side of the Valley under one county council, and of the other side of the Valley under another county council. That would be a step in the right direction, but it is really absurd that this population in this big valley should still be hopelessly divided—

The CHAIRMAN: I think that that is a matter which might be more appropriately raised on Clause 42.

Mr. JONES: Have I your assurance that I can raise it on Clause 42?

The CHAIRMAN: If the other allotted business is disposed of before 10.30, I shall be prepared to hear the hon. Member.

Mr. JONES: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Hope, for your assistance. I would say to the Minister that the present provision does not meet the real need in these districts. What we really want is a kind of special Boundary Commission. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that some years ago his own Department appointed a South Wales Regional Committee, mainly to go into the question of the distribution of the area on town planning lines. I agree heartily with Part III of the Bill as regards town planning, and I suggest that, just as the Government are making provision for joint counsel and joint agreement for town planning purposes, so they should provide for municipal purposes, because many of these are quite as important as town planning itself. I suggest that the Amendment we are offering, instead of being a hindrance to the future good of the Bill when it becomes law, is going to be of great assistance, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in South Wales, the West Riding of Yorkshire, many parts of Lancashire and the Midlands—in fact, in every part of Great Britain where there is rapid industrial development, and especially in those districts that are of a hilly nature—the kind of
provision contained in this Amendment would be very welcome.
There is not a single authority in South Wales that would not welcome this Amendment and that will not be very disappointed if the Government do not meet us in this direction. I do not suggest that the Amendment is worded in the happiest possible way from the point of view of meeting the needs that exist. We are quite willing that the Minister should take our point seriously on Report, and amend the wording in any way that he likes so long as he accepts the substance, namely, that the possible readjustment of local government areas should not be limited to the county council, and that the county council should not be given the initiative in making the readjustment. That is necessary because, with all due respect to the county councils, they have a vested interest in the matter, and sooner or later the Ministry of Health must come in to settle any differences that may arise, in view of the recommendations of the South Wales Regional Committee on this point. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a more serious view of this Amendment.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: The burden of the argument of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico), and also of that of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) so far as it was relevant, seemed to me to be that the county councils were not likely to he impartial bodies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Why should they not be impartial bodies? I know what my own County Council of Middlesex does in settling boundaries between urban and other areas, and I have never heard it suggested that they were not an impartial body. The theory that they are one of the parties does not seem to me to hold water. The county councils are made up of representatives from all the different districts, and I cannot conceive why it should be thought that a county council is not likely to be impartial as between one district and another of the different districts which make up its area. The two hon. Members have, I think, forgotten the advantage that comes from this Clause. It does help in regard to one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Consett,
namely, that this work has not been done in the past. This Clause makes it mandatory upon the county council to do it.

Mr. DUNNICO: My argument was that this work, which was a very urgent necessity in the past, has been done with appalling slowness, because the county councils have not done their duty.

Sir P. PILDITCH: Then the hon. Member is in favour of the Clause as it stands, because what the Clause does is to make mandatory that which hitherto has not been mandatory.

Mr. DUNNICO: No.

Sir P. PILDITCH: If the hon. Member reads the Clause, he will see that it says that the county council "shall" perform these duties, and I think it may be taken that they will not only carry them out, but will carry them out with celerity.

Mr. PALIN: This is an attempt to disestablish the parish pump. It seems to have a good many supporters in the Committee, and I had hoped that the Minister himself would have risen beyond the parish pump point of view in regard to the readjustment of boundaries. It is not the case that, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) has said, the county councils go into these matters with an absolutely impartial point of view. The county council has a, very definite point of view in connection with the readjustment of boundaries, and while it may be perfectly true, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that these matters will eventually come to the Ministry, a decision will have been arrived at. What we are wanting is to get a scientific adjustment of boundaries both of local authorities and of counties, so that we may get the most efficient local government. Although the Minister seems to object to bouquets when we throw them at him, we are quite satisfied, from previous experience of these local inquiries, that they take a lot of time, that they are very expensive, and that in the past they have been very unsatisfactory. I am quite satisfied that, by the appointment of, say, two or three people by the Minister of Health, we should get the same principles brought to bear in adjustments throughout the country. Each
county council will take its own point. of view, and the Minister has been quite mistaken in suspecting our motives in moving this Amendment. If this adjustment of boundaries could be removed from the realm of the parish pump politician, it would be a very decided step in the direction of more efficient local government.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. FENBY: This is a Clause that I very heartily welcome, and I cannot imagine any section of the community interested in local government objecting to it, though I can quite realise that one section of the community will not like it, and that is the members of the Parliamentary Bar. I spent the Recess as a member of a county council dealing with the extension of a county borough. My whole object was that, instead of having a fight in a Parliamentary Committee room, we had better have a contest between the county borough and the county council. We obviated a fight, and we saved £40,000 or £50,000. We have wanted for a long time in local government some principle whereby these things would be settled, not in a Parliamentary Committee room, but in a more amicable and homely way, the local people having a greater say than they would have in a Parliamentary Committee room. The last thing I want to see is a travelling commission, or circus, going up and down the country districts examining whether an alteration should be made or not. I can quite understand people who have never been members of a county council having a good deal of aversion to those bodies, but I have yet to find a county council which is in any way vindictive or narrow-minded. How can there be any prejudice on the part of a county council as to what should be the exact boundary of an urban or rural district? They will judge the case on its merits. If you are going to have a commission, you are going to have considerable expense, and I am certain it will not be efficient.
I am convinced that the Amendment, though it may have very good intentions, would be evil in its effects so far as these boundaries are concerned. I welcome the Clause, first of all, because county authorities are going to be compelled by a certain date to consider the question of
boundaries. That has been an urgent question for a long time. I welcome it, in the second place, because it provides a cheaper and a quicker method of decision of the question of borough and urban and rural district boundaries. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Amendment should be brought forward, because, in my opinion, the more home rule you have on these boundary questions, and the less interference you have from outside authorities, the better it is for the areas concerned. You always have this safeguard, that, if the borough or urban district is not satisfied, there is the 'appeal to the Minister, and that is as far in bureaucracy as I am prepared to go in my support of the Clause.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I should like to ask you, Sir, whether it is clear that at this moment we are only discussing the question whether a proposal should be considered, in the first place, by a county council or by a body of persons other than a county council, or whether we are permitted to discuss what will happen after those proposals are put forward. I do not refer to the speech of the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) particularly, but generally, as I have listened to the Debate, it appears that we have gone further.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was not in the House when the discussion commenced, but I understand from previous consultation with the Chairman of Ways and Means that we are limited to these two Amendments that we are taking concurrently.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I support the Amendment because it gives an opportunity for impartial examination of the question of boundaries, and the re-adjustment of areas. I differ very strongly from the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) who suggested that this would be an expensive way of arriving at a better distribution. I can imagine no more complicated and no more troublesome way of readjusting boundaries than is provided in the Bill. The responsibility is placed upon the county council. Even if there is a desire for a change, there is no obligation to call together these bodies and consult with them to suggest that certain changes shall be made. I know of a town in my
own division which has been claiming the right to extend its areas. It is opposed by the county council and by neighbouring towns. A great deal of litigation has already been engaged in, and they are no nearer a settlement to-day than they were some years ago when it was first mooted. If the county council is called into this again, it will bring in another factor of disagreement, and there will be interminable quarrelling. The Amendment removes that possibility of disagreement and expense, because it will at once remove the points to be considered from the control of partisanship. It puts it in the hands of a small compact body of impartial persons. To call it a travelling circus is a very improper description of the body we suggest.
In the Clause, the council is expected to inquire whether it is desirable to effect any alteration or definition of the boundaries of a district or parish, the union of any district with another, the transfer of any part of a district to another district, or the conversion of any rural district into an urban district. With that power vested in the county council, I can see every rural area in my county seeking for some change, for some greater authority, or some extension of its areas. I can see a demand being made for urban powers, I can see demands being made for the union of small urban areas, and I can see everyone going into the conference jealous of its authority, and jealous of any advantage that may be gained by others. If it is not an impartial body, I can see the possibility of infinite complications and disagreements and endless controversy, and, finally, a reference to arbitration at great expense, the whole of which can be avoided if this impartial body, which has nothing to gain and which only has regard to the efficiency of local administration, is set up. The Minister need have no fear that this is designed to take away any authority from him. If the Amendment is passed, some future Minister of Health will be entrusted with setting up an impartial body. People who make so much wealth out of the disagreements of local authorities at such heavy expense will not care for the Amendment, but anyone who wants to get reasonable differences settled in an amicable way will stand for it.

Sir E. TURTON: I am sorry that such a highly-respected member of the Essex County Council as the hon. Member opposite should be the author of this Amendment. Surely, he has frequently had to conduct these inquiries. Surely it will not be suggested for a moment by those sitting on one side or another of him that he is not perfectly impartial. It is only suggested that we should carry on this practice which has been carried on for 40 years to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned. I have held a great number of these inquiries, sometimes alone and sometimes with other colleagues on the county council. It is suggested that it entails waste of time and money. Where does the expense come in? We get nothing for it. If you have a commission sent round, it will involve a great deal of expense and time, and in all probability it will be necessary to call in the one thing we want to avoid, and that is learned counsel on both sides. Then you will have one side getting up its evidence, and rebutting evidence on the other side. We were absolutely unanimous on this point in the Royal Commission. The evidence before us conclusively proved that the proper body to conduct this inquiry was the county council.
I may be considered an interested party, but I have a very high opinion of the impartiality and fairness with which county councils conduct their business. They have local knowledge, and that is an enormous factor in coming to a proper conclusion. It is laid down quite clearly and explicitly in the Royal Commission's Report that the districts concerned are to be consulted. That is only fair and right, and what the county councils themselves would wish to be done. They are not interested parties. They only have regard to the interests of the districts. The Amendment is really quite unnecessary. We are asked to cast a slur on county councils. I ask the Committee to follow the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission. There was no objection raised by any single representative of the urban district councils, county boroughs, non-county boroughs and the rural councils. No one will raise the slightest objection, and everyone agrees that this is the proper method of carrying out this inquiry. Under these circumstances, I suggest that it will be quite unnecessary to put away the county
councils and to substitute for them a commission which would cost a great deal of money and be far less satisfactory than the proposal in the Bill.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Looking at the Clause and at the Amendment as dispassionately as one can, it appears to me that, after all, this is a question that really should not be regarded on party lines. It is, surely, a matter that ought to commend itself to the general commonsense in which men form opinions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) in not desiring to see more bureaucratic government set up than is essential. I am a Socialist, and I believe that the best form of communal ownership and control is going to come from round the parish pump. The nearer you can get to control the better it will be. I do not believe in the big unit but in having the unit as small as possible. Although one has to realise that there are certain functions which have to be carried out on a large scale, there are many [more which ought to be carried out on as small a scale as possible. I want interests to be centred as near the homes of the people as possible. I want to see that kind of authority established that will create the greatest amount of civic pride and communal responsibility.
It seems to me that one could easily run into dangers over matters of this description. For instance, I do not know what the Minister would say would be the position of an urban district council desirous of enlarging its boundaries and of seeking municipal powers. Who would be likely to oppose a demand of that description I should say, on the face of it, that the power that would oppose a proposition of that description would be the county council. There would be the removal of Members of the county council. There would be the taking away of districts. There would be the interefence with rateable values. There would be inconvenience in connection with the supervision of roads. There would be a narrowing down of powers and of areas of control.
It is not always public interests which are paramount when these matters come to be discussed. We have had in this House some rather curious illustrations of that point of view. Some time ago
the Manchester Corporation acquired a very large property outside its boundaries for the purpose of housing its people. It sought to get that area incorporated within its own boundaries. It was opposed by outside authorities. I believe that the Cheshire County Council entered a caveat against the proposal. The Manchester Corporation was attacked by the rural authorities of this area. Obviously, it seemed to be the common sense point of view that Manchester ought to be allowed the freedom which it sought, but Manchester was put to tremendous expense because it had to fight the authorities.
That seems to be an illustration in favour of this Amendment that these questions of discussion and likely antagonisms should be removed as far as possible from the control of the particularly interested parties and should be merged under the control of a body that could act the part of umpire or referee. That is how it, commends itself to me.
I cannot conceive that the question of party should enter into this question at all. Will the Government give a free vote of the Committee on this question, which does not seem to be paramount or vital to the Bill? Will the Government agree to take off the Whips and give a free hand on a matter which is of vital importance, not to this Committee as a Committee, but to the areas of the authorities we are discussing, and which to a large extent we are creating by this Bill? That seems to me to be a sensible proposal, but, failing that, I think I shall support the Amendment, because it would mean fewer antagonisms in the future. On a previous Amendment, I gave the illustration of the county of Glamorgan. Glamorgan is under a cloud at the present time. The coal trade is suffering and district councils are suffering, but there is a fair assumption that the county of Glamorgan will not remain permanently under this cloud. The cloud may be lifted. Prosperity may come to the coal trade; science may be able to do that for us in the near future. Where there is distress at the present time there may be prosperity in the future, and then we may see the expansion of the smaller areas into larger areas. Take for instance the case of Pontypridd. Pontypridd is a growing area and it ought to obtain municipal powers before very long.
It is an urban district at the present moment. The Rhondda Valley ought to have municipal powers. It is big enough and important enough. When prosperity returns to these areas and the time comes for this development, I hope that the question as to whether they ought to have municipal powers or not will not be placed under the control of a body like the Glamorgan County Council which may be expected to have objections to such a demand. It is for reasons of that description and not because I have any feeling of party in this matter, that I shall support the Amendment, believing that it is in the best interests that it should be carried.

Sir H. NIELD: I wish to say only one or two short sentences in regard to the Amendment. First of all, I believe that, as far as the legal profession is concerned, they would welcome the passing of it because, no doubt, the bodies concerned would brief counsel.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Does it necessarily follow that you must brief counsel in an inquiry of this sort? Cannot the Minister decide whether his own officials are competent enough without counsel being called in?

Sir H. NIELD: It does not necessarily follow that you brief counsel, but almost invariably the parties do, and the result is that expense is incurred which might have been avoided. What I want to point out is that in the county of Middlesex we have had this Act for 40 years. During that time, I have been a member of the Middlesex County Council for 33 years, and these inquiries have been frequent. There has been no difficulty in holding these inquiries when two or three members of the county council have gone down locally, already having a general knowledge of the district with which they had to deal, but, since the attempt was made to incorporate the whole of the county of Middlesex and part of other counties into the Metropolitan Police area as an authority under London, the recommendations of the Commission were in favour of amalgamation of districts. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk arid Malton (Sir E. Turton) was a member of that Commission too. Since that report was published, there have been a
number of amalgamations, preceded by such an inquiry as has been customary, and which would he maintained by the Bill, without any friction or difficulty.
There is only one case which I can call to mind in which unanimity could not be obtained, and that was in a district surrounding Harrow. On that occasion it was necessary to hold an inquiry, at which counsel were present. The inquiry was protracted, and it was protracted because counsel were there. The inquiry involved very considerable expense to all the authorities concerned, whereas if we had been allowed to deal with the matter in the ordinary way of the county management of county boundaries, we should have avoided the trouble and expense. The Government are right in resisting the Amendment, which would mean simply the spending of more money, and I cannot see that it would reduce the amount of quarrelling between the local authorities.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the right hon. and learned Member suggest that under the Government's proposal there would be no legal contention of any kind?

Sir H. NIELD: Judging by the experience of the past, there would not be.

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the question of the hon. Member is that there would be less need for the Parliamentary Bar or for any other legal representation under the scheme as proposed in the Clause than under the Amendment. One point has been overlooked. We are not considering the question of a dispute between one district and another, but we are discussing the question of the general review of the whole county in regard to certain re-arrangements, and I am driven to the conclusion that if we are to have the initiation of a general scheme, it must come from the people who have local knowledge. If the Minister is to be the judge in the end whether or not he will issue an Order confirming any report made for drawing up boundaries, certainly the first initiation should come from the people who have considered all the circumstances in the locality, and if they proceed by way of conference, as suggested, they are much more likely to smooth out difficulties which might cause legal trouble than if they were a commission going down to the district without any local knowledge, and trying to
weigh evidence of which they had no practical knowledge. Therefore, the initiation ought to come by way of friendly conference between the county council and the other councils concerned in any such re-arrangement. If there is to be a general review, leading up to 1932, for a scheme throughout the country for the widening of boundaries, the best thing for the country would be a boundary association representative of some of the great national services administered locally for consultation as to how the boundaries might be more fairly adjusted. That matter is covered by another Amendment. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) that there is no question of party feeling, I think the Government are proceeding on the right lines. Since there are 140 powers given to the Minister in the Bill, I object. to being the 141st.

Mr. LEE.: Whilst I partly agree with what has been said in regard to giving more power to the Minister, I am rather drawn by the experience in my own town. I live in one of the largest non-county boroughs in the country. For a consider-

able time we have been trying to extend our borough, for more than one purpose —the primary purpose was not that of becoming a county borough—and we have found that our greatest and strongest opponent all the time has been the county council. Inside my own constituency there is a striking anomaly. The largest town in the constituency has not even urban council powers. It is simply a parish council, although it has a population of 17,000. Every time that district has tried to get more powers it has been opposed by the county council and the rural district council. In order to get away from local feeling, which sometimes results in prejudice, I would ask the Minister of Health to reconsider the point as to whether he should not deal with these questions himself. There would be consultation with the Minister before any definite scheme takes place. I shall vote in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 109.

Division No. 96.]
AYES.
[8.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colman, N. C. D.
Gower, Sir Robert


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Conway. Sir W. Martin
Grace. John


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Cope, Major sir William
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Amery, Rt. Hon, Leopold C. M. s.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Applin, Colonel R. v. K.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Balfour, George (Hampetead)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Balniel, Lord
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hanbury, C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harland, A.


Bennett, A. J.
Crookshank. Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harris, Percy A.


Bethel. A.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Harrison, G. J. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, G. (Lambeth. Kennington)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Briggs, J. Harold
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dean, Arthur welleslsy
Hills, Major John Waller


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dixey, A. C.
Hilton. Cecil


Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Buchan, John
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Woston-s-M.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bullock, Captain M.
Evans. Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Burman, J. B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Campbell, E. T.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Home, Sir G. H.


Cassels, J. D.
Fenby, T. D.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hurst. Gerald B.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montross)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, s.)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Iveagh, Countess of


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Chapman, Sir S
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).


Christle, J. A.
Ganzonl. Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Gates, Percy
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goff, Sir Park
Lamb, J. O.


Litter, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Perring, Sir William George
Strauss, E. A.


Loder. J. de V.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Streatlelld. Captain S. R.


Looker, Herbert William
Pilcher, G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lougher, Lewis
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Templeton, W. P.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Lumley, L. R.
Radford, E. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Raine, Sir Walter
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macintyre, Ian
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Remer, J. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervya
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Waddington, R.


Margesson, Captain D.
Ropner, Major L.
Wallace. Captain D. E.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Milne, J. S. Wardlsw-
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wiggins, William Martin


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandon, Lord
Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Withers, John James


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)
Womersley. W. J.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith-Carington, Nevilla w.
Wood, E. (Cheat'r, Stulyb'ge & Hyde)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wragg, Herbert


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Owen. Major G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.



Pennelather, Sir John
Storry-Deans, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


penny, Frederick George
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor




Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillabro')
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shinwell, E.


Baker, Walter
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Kennedy, T.
Smillie, Robert


Barnes, A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondaey, Rotherhitha)


Batey, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bellamy, A.
Lansbury, George
Stamford. T. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromfield, William
Lindley, F. W.
Sullivan, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Lowth, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomae
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Charleton, H. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
March. S.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison. R.
Maxton, James
Wallhead. Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Morris, R. H.
Welsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins. Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh. J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby. Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normairton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster. Newton)


Hardie. George D.
Ritson, J.



Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorka, W. R., Elland)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Henderson, T (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Charles Edwards.


Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred

Sir REGINALD NEVILLE: I beg to move, in page 34, to leave out from the word "Act" in line 24, to the word "and" in line 27, and to insert instead thereof the words:
review the circumstances of all districts wholly or partly within the county.
If the Amendment is accepted, the Clause will read:
The council of every county shall as soon as may be after the commencement on this Act, review the circumstances of all districts wholly or partly within the county, and consider whether it is desirable to effect any of the following changes.
As a consequential Amendment we also propose in Sub-section (1), after the word "county," to insert the words:
and after conferring thereon not later than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, with the councils of the several districts wholly or partly within the county or such of them as are likely to be affected by such review.
The object of these two Amendments is to get on with the business. This particular Amendment, out of some 30 or 40 which we have been asked by the Norfolk County Council to put forward, is one which has escaped the procedure on this Bill. The object is to enable a county council to get on with the formation of their scheme, and then, when they have prepared it, they can submit it to a conference of the councils within their area. It means that this work will be taken in hand almost immediately instead of a few months before the 1st of April, 1932. Instead of having three months for discussion, consideration and adjustment, the Norfolk County Council hope to be able to draw up a scheme within the next six months, and they can submit it to the councils concerned and discuss it with them shortly afterwards. In that case there will be a much longer time for the consideration of the scheme. The two Amendments ensure that the scheme will be completed before the 1st of April, 1932, a somewhat unfortunate day. They will be completed by 1st of January preceding that date, and the councils in the area will have three months in which to appeal to the Minister instead of the bulk of the time being taken up by squabbling between the smaller areas and the county council. There is no chance of that in the county Of Norfolk. Conferences will take place after the scheme has been put forward, and district councils will be able to make their suggestions. After these conferences the county council will submit their scheme ripe and ready three months before the appointed day.

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. Friend is, I know, desirous of improving the particular provisions of this Clause with a view to getting full consultation between the county council and the various other local authorities which are affected by the Clause. What we are proposing in the Clause is that before the county council shall definitely present their scheme to the Minister of Health for his approval,
they shall consult the various local authorities concerned so that before the proposals are carried out regard shall be paid to the legitimate claims and desires of what, for convenience, I shall call the minor authorities. The rights of the smaller authorities are fully safeguarded in that way. I do not think it would help if the county council formulated its scheme first and after that consulted the smaller authorities. It might very well make for delay. What we are doing is to secure, both before and after the formulation of the scheme, that the local authorities shall have full power to put forward their views. For these reasons I think the proposal of the Bill is the more convenient.

Mr. REMER: I have an Amendment on the Paper later, and I am sorry that my iron. Friend who moved the present Amendment has dealt with the particular point in the way that he has done. I do not think lie realises that urban districts are sometimes in two different counties. One large urban district in my own constituency is partly in Derbyshire and partly in Cheshire. At a later stage it will be necessary to have agreements between the two counties before difficulties or anomalies can be cleared out of the way. Of course the point put forward by my hon. Friend is of vita! importance to those areas. The areas have to be dealt with by some means in order to settle their grievances. The position has arisen in the past, and is arising now, in the case of two areas where certain roadways are dealt with by one county council and other roadways in another part of the same urban area are dealt with by another county council. We have had the greatest difficulty in getting anything dealt with satisfactorily. There should be some means devised whereby urban areas which exist in two different counties could be divided or the county areas altered.

Sir K. WOOD: I suggest that the hon. Member should give me particulars of the case that he has in mind, because it has not hitherto been brought to our attention. Perhaps after this discussion my hon. and learned Friend will with draw the Amendment.

Mr. LEE: I might tell the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) that if he wishes the area he has men-
tioned to be added to Cheshire he will meet with great opposition from Derbyshire.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 34, line 26, after the word "county," to insert the words
and of the Ministry of Health, the Board of Education, the Home Office, and the Ministry of Transport.
This Amendment aims at removing one of the defects of this Clause, which is that it has not regard for the wide considerations which ought to be taken into account in any re-arrangement of the county districts. We attach more importance to the Amendment which appears later on the Paper—in page 34, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(f) the combination of the area of the council with the area or areas of one or more other county councils for the purpose of town-planning or of highway administration 
—than we do to this Amendment, but, at the same time, we think it would be a great advantage if, at the conference between the smaller authorities and the county council, representatives attended from the Ministries concerned with the great semi-national services of health, transport, roads, schools and police. In that way the wider implications of the policy, as well as the narrower considerations of the revision of the districts, might be considered when the schemes are being drawn up.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): County Councils have been dealing with business of an analagous character with this ever since 1888, and it has never been found necessary, as far as I know, that they should consult with each individual Government Department concerned. It must be remembered that even if it were necessary that there should be consultation with a Government Department the proper Government Department to consult is the Ministry of Health. You cannot have consultations with every one of the Government Departments. Each Department cannot have a finger in the pie. The business of the Government is one and indivisible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, the business of the Ministry of Health is to secure the views and the opinions of the different Govern-
ment Departments, and inasmuch as the Minister of Health is the decisive authority ultimately to consider the proposals put forward by the county council, it would appear a little strange if the consultation were to be with the Ministry of Health in advance—the Ministry of Health, as I say, being the ultimate arbiter as to the justice and wisdom of the scheme. I suggest that the Ministry of Health is informed of the wishes and views of all the other Government Departments, and it is better that they should be, as it were, the collecting ground of these opinions rather than that the county council should act in advance in the way suggested.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I start out with the Attorney-General's assumption that the problem from the Government's point of view is one. I accept that assumption, but, as I understand it, the purpose of this Amendment is to coordinate the work of all the public Departments concerned in this particular respect. Consider what is now before the Committee. It is the question of the rearrangement of the county districts. If there is one thing certain it is that you cannot find a rearrangement of districts which will be suitable for all purposes. It may be that for police purposes, in which the Home Office will be involved, certain considerations will be found important; but if. on the other hand, you are considering an amalgamation of districts for education purposes, the same considerations will not apply. It is increasingly clear, as local government becomes more complicated, that the ideal of the enormously large authority is a dream. What is needed is to build up combinations of authorities for particular purposes, and the combination of authorities required for police purposes may be entirely different from the combination required for education or transport purposes. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that when there is to be a general review of the situation—a thing which has never happened before, a remarkable step which is now being taken for the first time—that, in those circumstances, consultation ought not to he confined to the Ministry of Health but should include those other Departments which have relations with the local authorities, regarding different functions and duties.
The Department mentioned in this Amendment all have their special relations with local authorities. True, these relations are for different purposes, but the grouping and rearrangement of the county districts that may take place ought not to be determined solely by the Ministry of Health. We ought to have regard for the other functions which are outside the scope of that Department. It may he true, as the learned Attorney-General says, that the Ministry of Health is fully informed of the views, the policy and the attitude of the other Departments, but the whole point is that the Minister of Transport, for instance, on this question of county districts, might not see eye to eye with the Minister of Health. I can imagine that the Minister of Health might take an entirely different view from that taken by the Minister of Transport about the possibilities of this rearrangement. Why, therefore, should the Minister of Health deal with this matter without regard to the other Departments? This Amendment deserves more consideration than has been given to it by the Attorney-General. It is not a frivolous Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not say it was.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not suggesting that the hon. and learned Gentleman actually said so, but in the very few words which he devoted to it he seemed to brush it aside as though it were of little importance. I put it to the Committee that this rearrangement of the county districts is a serious problem and that it is most desirable that the views of the various Departments of State, which in one way or another, are concerned with the local governing bodies, should be brought into the

general pool. This is especially so as regards this first general review of the whole problem. I do not think you can get an ideal arrangement of districts for all purposes but, with a view to getting the maximum amount of agreement among the various Departments and the county authorities I hope the Attorney-General will reconsider his views.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: Although the Attorney-General replied for the Government I think I could see behind him the sinister figure of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who, evidently, will brook no rival near his throne. The right hon. Gentleman sees in this proposal a plot whereby all these other authorities would come in and take away some measure of his authority. I assure him that nothing of the kind is suggested. Of course the ultimate authority in these matters must remain with the Minister of Health and 'nothing will take away from that authority. The learned Attorney-General was considering individual cases, where it would probably be cumbersome and unnecessary to have an extended consultation with a great many representatives of different departments, but when you are making an altogether new start in this matter, it is going to be done in a measure once for all, and it may as well he done properly. Therefore, we want to get all the information we can, and when it has been gathered and acted on, then the Ministry of Health resumes its sway, without anybody interrupting or interfering with it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 191.

Division No. 97.]
AYES.
[9.7 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Charleton, H. C.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cluse, W. S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Connolly, M.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Ammon, Charles George
Cove, W. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Grundy, T. W.


Baker, Walter
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barnes, A.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hardle, George D.


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, C.
Harris, Percy A.


Bellamy, A.
Dunnico, H.
Hayday, Arthur


Bowerman, Bt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedweilty)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Broad, F. A.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Bromfield, William
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hirst, G. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gardner, J. P.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gibbins, Joseph
Hudson, J, H. (Huddersfield)


Buchanan, G.
Gillett, George M.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Cape, Thomas
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thorne, w. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Potts, John S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tinker. John Joseph


Kennedy, T.
Ritson, J.
Tomlinson, R. p.


Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Townend, A. E.


Lansbury, George
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Eiland)
Viant, S. P.


Lawrence, Susan
Saklatvala, Shapurjl
Walihead, Richard C.


Lee, F.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lindley, F. W.
Scurr, John
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wellock, Wilfred


Lowth, T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Welsh, J. C.


Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Whiteley, W.


Macklnder, W.
Shinwell, E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


March, S.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, Dr. j. H. (Lianelly)


Maxton, James
Smillie, Robert
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Montague, Frederick
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Murnin, H.
Stamford, T. W.
Wright, W.


Naylor, T. E.
Stephen, Campbell
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Oliver, George Harold
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Palln, John Henry
Strauss, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Paling, W.
Sullivan, J.
Mr. Fenby and Major Owen.


Parkinson, John Atlen (Wigan)
Sutton, J. E.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lumley, L. R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Everard. W Lindsay
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Macintyre, Ian


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Manningham-Builer, Sir Mervyn


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bennett, A. J.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.


Bethel, A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Betterton, Henry B.
Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Neville. Sir Reginald J.


Braithwaite. Major A. N.
Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brass, Captain W.
Grace, John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Briscoe. Richard George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oman, sir Charles William C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gunston. Captain D. W.
Pennefather, Sir John


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Buchan, John
Hanbury, C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Burman, J. B
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, Sir William George


Campbell, E. T.
Harland, A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cassels, J. D.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilcher, G.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kenntngton)
Power, sir John Cecil


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Radford, E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Raine. Sir Walter


Chapman, Sir S.
Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hills. Major John Waller
Remer, J. R.


Christie, J. A.
Hilton. Cecil
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Clarry, Reginald George
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ropner, Major L.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hopkins. J. W. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Conway. Sir W. Martin
Hopkinson. A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cope, Major Sir William
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hume, Sir G. H,
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hurd, Percy A
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandon, Lord


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cunilffe, Sir Herbert
Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Ma). Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Commodore Henry Dougle
Somervtlle, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. O.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Dean,. Arthur Wellesley
Loder, J. de V.
Storry-Deans, R.


Dixey, A. C.
Looker, Herbert William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Loug her, Lewis
Streatfeild. Captain S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid




Tasker, R Inigo.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Templeton, W. P.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, E. (Chost'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Watts, Sir Thomas
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wragg, Herbert


Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wells, S. R.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Vauqhan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Waddington, R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wallace, captain D. E.
Withers, John James
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor


Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Womersley, W. J.
Warrender.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) —in page 34, line 29, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) the division of any such district or of any parish into two or more such districts or parishes";
and in line 29, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) any alteration of the name of any such district or parish
—could be moved as a. new paragraph (1); and the same remark applies to the Amendment in the name of the lion. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)—in page 34, line 31, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) any alteration of electoral divisions.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 34, line 32, after the word "district," to insert the words" or parish."
Under this Clause the county council has power to review any alteration or definition of the boundaries of a parish, but there is no power to apply to a parish the provisions of the various paragraphs that follow paragraph (a) in this Clause. As the Royal Commission made it clear that they considered that parishes should be included in the review, I have put my name to this and the following Amendments which have been put down by some of my hon. Friends.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 34 line 33, at the end, insert the words "or parish."

In page 34 line 34, after the word "district," insert the words "or parish."

In page 34 line 35, at the end, insert the words "or parish."

In page 34 line 40, at the end, insert the words "or parish."—[Mr. Chamberlain.].

Sir D. NEWTON: I beg to move, in page 34, line 40, at the end, to insert the words:
(f) any alteration of the electoral divisions in the county and of the number of county councillors.
I have also on the Paper a cones quential Amendment—in page 36, line 26, at the end, to insert the words:
(7) Provided that in the application of the foregoing provisions of this Section to any alteration of the electoral divisions in a county or of the number of county councillors and to any proposals in regard thereto, the Secretary of State shall be substituted for the Minister, and the Secretary of State shall consider not only the proposals of the county council, but also any proposals in regard to any alteration of the electoral divisions in the county and of the number of county councillors that may be made by the council of any district wholly or partly within the county.
(8) In determining the constitution of electoral divisions regard shall be had not only to the directions contained in Section fifty-one of the Local Government Act, 1888, but also to the net annual value of the hereditaments comprised in each division.
This, I think, may be taken in conjunction with the Amendment which I am now moving. Both Amendments have the same object, namely, to ensure that the areas of electoral divisions and their representation on the county council should be duly considered in the light of the way in which they are affected by the reorganisation of districts and also by the Bill as a whole. The difficulty, which is well known in connection with the representation of certain districts on county councils, is, I believe, fully appreciated by the Minister, and I hope that he will be able to find some way out of it, because unless he does it will impair the promise and potency of the Measure as a whole. The Minister has already received a deputation from the Association of Municipal Corporations, representing the county boroughs and non-county boroughs, upon this subject. They then pressed upon him the point of view embodied in the Amendments. In reply to the deputation, the Minister expressed himself in sympathy with the object of the Amendments, but I understand that he hesitated to incorporate them in the Bill, fearing that they would
tend to overload it. I can hardly think that two such modest Amendments as these would overload a Bill consisting of 155 pages.
In the Local Government Act of 1888, provision was made for dealing with the electoral divisions and the alterations which took place in consequence of the passing of that Act, and I would like to read two Clauses which appear to be germane. In Clause 51 it was laid down that
The divisions shall be arranged with a view to the population of each division being, so nearly as conveniently may be equal, regard being had to a proper representation both of the rural and of the urban population, and to the distribution and pursuits of such population.
The pursuits of the population which I represent are educational, and I feel that they in particular should obtain adequate representation on the county council. Again, in Clause 54, sub-section (1), of the same Bill dealing with the same point, it was provided that
Whenever it is represented by the council of any county or borough to the local government board,
(a) that the alteration of the boundary of any county or borough is desirable …
(f) that the alteration of any area. of local government partly situate in their county or borough is desirable;
the local government board shall, unless for special reasons they think that the representation ought not to he entertained, cause to be made a local inquiry, and may make an order.
I would add that in the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, it was also expressly provided that regard must be had to the number of persons rated in the ward, and to the aggregate rating of the ward itself. I therefore suggest that there are several potent precedents for the inclusion in the Bill of the Amendments which I am moving.
I think the case is all the more strong for adequate provision to meet this difficulty now that the old remedy of turning a non-county borough into a county borough has to a great extent been done away with. The limit of population has been increased by recent legislation from 50,000 to 75,000 so that the the previous remedy for dealing with a situation of this kind is no longer available to the same extent. If I may quote a particu-
lar case, I would like to refer to my own constituency of Cambridge. In that case 70 per cent. of the rates will in future be found by the borough, but although the county will raise only some 30 per cent. of the rates, 28 members will represent the rural areas, while only 20 will come from urban districts. That is an unsatisfactory state of things. I think that it is perhaps an extreme case, but some provision should be made so as to bring about a state of equity and equality. I hope the Minister of Health will not bang, bolt and bar the door in our faces, for T am anxious that this Bill should be administered by local authorities not only with knowledge but also with enthusiasm, and if anomalies are allowed to creep in, it will very much deter the easy and satisfactory working of the Measure when it reaches the Statute Book.

Sir K. WOOD: The speech which my hon. Friend has just addressed to the Committee, especially when we consider the case of Cambridge which he has so constantly brought to the notice of the Committee, demands some further consideration. As I understand it, his object is to extend the review which is suggested in this Clause to the alteration of electoral divisions as well as of county districts. The Government have given particular consideration to this matter, especially having regard to the strong representations which my hon. Friend has made, and we think, under all the circumstances of the case, that some step must be taken in order to remedy not only the case to which my hon. Friend has referred, but other anomalies that exist. What we propose to do—and I invite my hon. Friend to accede to the suggestion—is to frame a new Clause, because obviously this is a matter which must be dealt with in a different way than by an Amendment to this particular Clause. The Government propose to frame a new Clause providing for a resurvey of the electoral divisions by January, 1933, and to base that survey on the existing criteria contained in Section 51 of the Act. My hon. Friend in his Amendment, suggests that regard ought to be had to the net annual value and so to introduce a new factor. I think it would be very difficult to take in a matter of this kind. In any event, I think he will be willing to wait until the proposals of the Government are known, and which, I hope, will be received with
that enthusiasm from the local authorities of which he spoke. In these circumstances, I suggest that he should withdraw his Amendment to-night, to enable the Government to put a new Clause down in good time before we reach the matter.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I want to ask why the Government should have decided to have, this county council review in 1933, when, in fact, they are having a general review in 1932. Is there any peculiar reason why there should be one year's extension beyond the general review for the county council areas? The Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary have already agreed as to the justice of the case submitted by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton). In receiving deputations from the urban district council authorities, they have both of them previously admitted the justice of the case, and, in view of the fact that in future urban district councils will, under the terms of this Bill, be called upon to pay such a large proportion of the county rates, unless at the earliest possible moment they are granted revision consistent with the rates they have to pay and with the population, they are not going to enjoy that measure of justice to which they are entitled. One recognises that this is a very serious matter and cannot be done hastily, but the county councils have not been what they might have been in the past, and it is perfectly obvious that unless there is such a review many councils will not hasten to review their electoral areas, and do what we consider to be the right thing, particularly under the terms of the Bill, which, after all, makes drastic changes both in assessments and rates, and so forth. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman has not gone quite far enough. Nothing less than a county review taking place simultaneously with the general review will be satisfactory. It seems to me that the promise to provide a new Clause which will give effect to the idea one year later than the general review is not enough.

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps I did not sufficiently explain myself. Obviously, you cannot alter your electoral divisions until you have taken your first step of alterations in connection with district areas.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that we are now living in 1928, and to wait until 1933 is five years. It should be perfectly obvious that between now and 1933 the county councils will have ample opportunity to examine their areas, and to review the electoral divisions. I think the Committee ought not to be content with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. The justice of the claim has been accepted by the Minister of Health, and the only plea put forward by the Minister—a perfectly legitimate one—to the Urban District Councils' Association was that the new Clause, desired by representatives of different people, might overload the Bill. I entirely agreed with the Minister when he made that statement, but now that he has decided to accept the principle and to embody it in the Bill, is there any peculiar reason why it should be delayed one year beyond the general review? The first claim, perhaps, is that of the local authorities whose general finance and situation are going to be changed in the urban and rural areas. While the intention and purpose of the review on the lines indicated in the Local Government Report are perfectly correct, the passing of this Bill makes it more and more urgent that perhaps the first thing that should be done is that the county councils should review their own electoral divisions, so as to provide an equitable basis for future elections and a redistribution of representation on those bodies, which will be infinitely more important bodies in the future than they have been up to this moment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see, at least, that the county councils shall as early as practicable, without dislocating their work, give effect to what he himself 'and others agree is a perfectly justifiable claim.

Mr. WITHERS: I represent some part of the Borough of Cambridge, and I must thank the Minister very much for the concession which he has made in, at any rate, admitting the principle. Having done that, it seems to me that the right thing is to wait and see the Clause which it is proposed to set down. It is useless to debate in our minds what we think the Minister is going to say. We must wait and see, and in the meantime, urge him to bring it into operation as soon as he possibly can, because
five years means a very serious delay, and we think it ought to be accelerated as far as possible.

Sir D. NEWTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in view of the assurance which has been given by the Minister, which I greatly appreciate [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should like to make the same reply as my colleague, and to say that I desire to see the new Clause first, and that I will reserve my comment until I have had an opportunity of seeing it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am sorry the hon. Member has taken this line, because it does not appear to me that the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with this question quite fairly. It is perfectly true that in point of time the redistribution of seats on local authorities would follow any redistribution that there might he in areas. The county councils must make this survey and complete it by April, 1932, that is in 3½ years' time. It must take into account all the alterations and redistributions, the breaking up of old districts and the formation of new ones. I should have thought it was part and parcel of that to determine the changes in representation that might be necessary. There may he good grounds for saying that this should be a separate Clause, but I think there is everything to be said for dealing with the whole thing together. I should not have thought it was pressing the county authorities too much to say that within 3½ years, when making these changes, they should at the same time take on this somewhat cognate question of considering the representation. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that that must follow, but the whole point we had in putting down a somewhat similar Amendment was to link this up with the general survey as an essential part of it. It may be that the Minister's Clause may meet our point, but our reason for refusing leave for the withdrawal of the Amendment is that the Parliamentary Secretary did not make things clear enough. If he can give as a definite assurance that it shall be dealt with as part of the general plan, then we may not feel so much ob-
jection to granting a little more time, though I cannot see that there is need for any more time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member has not had in mind the dates of the triennial elections for county councils. The next date is 1931, and it is quite impossible to have the review in time for that. The following elections will be in March, 1934, and if the scheme is prepared by 1933, as my right hon. Friend suggested, it will be in time for the elections in 1934.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not see any real point in prolonging the agony for another year. This is part of the general question of the survey, and I should have thought it would have been possible to make it part and parcel of the general survey.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 34, line 40, at the end, to insert. the words:
(f) the combination of the area of the council with the area or areas of one or more other county councils for the purpose of town planning or of highway administration.
One of the blots on this proposed scheme is that, it overlooks the fact that it is necessary in town planning and road making to take a wider view than that of the county. The county cannot be regarded as the right unit for all purposes. We desire to make quite sure that when the first consultations take place in connection with the drawing up of the scheme a wider view with regard to roads and town planning shall be taken than would lie possible under the Bill as it stands at present. I do not think the case can be better pat than it is put in the White Paper. On page 18, speaking with reference to town planning, the right hon. Gentleman points out:
The making of adequate provisions in regard to highways plays an important pert in town planning, and, since the road powers of county councils will be widely extended by the preceding clauses … it becomes essential that the position and powers of these authorities in town planning shall he properly defined. At present county councils have no powers of taking any formal part in the preparation and administration of town planning schemes—a state of affairs which, even apart from the present proposals has been shown by experience to be unsatisfactory.
We have not had the advantage of discussing the town planning clauses, but as the Committee are aware there has in recent years been a big move, and a voluntary move, towards the combination of areas for purposes wider than those of the areas. We have no desire to impede that movement by any action from the centre which might cause jealousy and, indeed, hamper the movement; and we do think that now that the various councils in the areas are coming together for the purpose of considering a rearrangement of districts one of the things which ought to be considered is the relation of those districts and the county itself to the other districts outside the county.
May I take an illustration given by Sir Henry Maybury before the Royal Commission in 1925? Sir Henry Maybury was talking about East Sussex. I see that the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) is present, and he will remember the case. Outside the county borough of Eastbourne is the Eastbourne Rural District Council. The county rate in East Sussex for roads was 1s. 9½., but the road rate in the Eastbourne Rural District Council was 5s., a total rate for that area. of 6s. 9½d., though it was obvious, said Sir Henry, that the bulk of the traffic over the roads of the Eastbourne Rural District Council originated and terminated in Eastbourne or in the boroughs of Brighton or Hastings. If a case like that arises we desire that when the scheme drawn up by a council is under discussion consideration shall be given to the problem of town planning on the wider scale rather than on a narrow scale limiting it to the confines of the county, because we think a good opportunity arises to bring to the notice of county councils, some of whom have been rather indifferent on the matter, that it is vitally important, if we are to have proper highways, that our traffic problem should be handled with a wider outlook. All kinds of problems are mixed up with that problem—the problems of life and limb, livelihood and leisure— [Interruption]. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) refers to my summary way of putting it, and certainly the case might be stated at greater length, but I am trying to compress what I want to say.
We think this is a big matter, and no greater impetus could be given to the movement, happily growing, for combinations of local authorities to work together in these two matters. They should not only be planning ahead, but they should be making their roads not merely in accordance with the needs of their own particular local districts but with regard to the wider interests of public health and traffic conditions and the removal of people from slum areas into areas where there are light and air and space. We have constantly been reminded—at least a hundred times in this Debate—that it is very easy for people with local interests to take merely a local interest in a subject. I was speaking of Sussex a moment ago and Mr. Kipling, in one of his most charming poems, said:
God gave all men all earth to love,
But since our hearts are small,
Ordained for each one spot shall prove
 Beloved over all.
That is true; but, nevertheless, we have often seen the reverse of that. While that is a delightful and desirable spirit, and has had a fine influence upon the national life and character, yet sometimes the love of one spot, one locality, or one county has had its drawbacks. When I speak of a county I would say that I yield to no man in my county spirit, being a Devonian and coming from what I consider to be the best county in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] This is not the place to debate that, but it could be debated, and considerable evidence brought to back up my contention. But the point is that the time has now arrived when we have to take the wider view than the county view, at any rate with regard to roads and town planning, having regard to the lives and the health of our men, women and children. If Queen Elizabeth and Cromwell had had their way—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that these references are relevant to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. BROWN: I hoped the evidence I was going to give would have shown that it. was germane to this discussion, for it may be remembered that both Elizabeth and Cromwell desired to prevent the growth of London—in one case beyond a radius of five miles from
Charing Cross and in the other case a radius of eight miles. If something of that kind could have been done we should not have had the slums of Bermondsey and Southwark to-day. Indeed, we have to-day to revise the evil results of the lack of vision and the lack of power of those who have gone before us. There are many other considerations which I could bring before the Committee, but I content myself with having indicated a point of view which, I believe, will command increasing support in the country. I think the Minister of Health will be well advised, in the interests of a wider view of road construction and road development, and the obtaining of better places for the erection of houses outside congested cities, if he places this question amongst the subjects to be discussed with the county districts and county councils, and allows a combination of councils for the purposes of this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The intentions of the hon. Member are entirely laudable, but any suggestion that this proposal was absent from the ideas of the Minister of Health is doing me less than justice. I think the hon. Member said that we had overlooked the great attention which is now being given to the broader issue. Of course, the council to which the hon. Member refers is the county council, but he appears to have overlooked the fact that county councils have no power to undertake town planning independently. If the hon. Member will turn to Clauses 33 and 34 he will find that there is power for county councils to combine with other authorities for town planning, and there is power enabling the Ministry to make combinations. Therefore, as far as town planning is concerned, those powers are already secured under the Bill.

Mr. E. BROWN: Not road-making.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will come to that question. The hon. Member must give me a chance. I cannot deal with more than one thing at a time. Unfortunately I have not the facility of language possessed by the hon. Member which enables him to deal with three or four things at one time. Upon the question of highways the hon. Member appears to have overlooked existing Acts,
and I would call his attention to the Highways and Bridges Act, 1891, which gives county councils power to deal with the construction and improvement of highways. There is also the Local Government Act, 1888, which allows county councils to combine for any purposes in which they are jointly interested. The hon. Member will see that the scope of this Amendment is fully covered by the provisions of this Bill.

Miss LAWRENCE: There is no part of the country in which town planning is more needed than in the administrative county of London, and I think it would be exceedingly unfortunate if we did not give to London and the home counties the power, after inquiry, to combine for the purposes of town planning. The same argument is true with regard to highways where improvements and reconstruction can only be carried out under very exceptional circumstances. If we had not been discussing this Measure under the Guillotine, I should have tried to develop the argument about the combination of county councils for highway purposes. What is needed at the present time is some power of combining the major authorities for a particular purpose.
May I give one illustration? There is the case of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage and River Drainage. With regard to that important service, there was an excellent scheme involving the union of five or six counties for a particular service. There are certain areas which are so very large that they are incompatible with any other unit of local government. I have always been against the establishment of larger authorities to deal with these questions, and I have always been of the opinion that a regrouping of counties under the guidance of the central government is all that is necessary. You want another wheel to the coach. You want the fullest power of combination for any service. It is one of my greatest disappointments that this Bill touches major questions in such a very small way. The County of London is excluded. Anyone who goes into the suburbs must be struck with the immense growth of London, and he must see sometimes the amenities of most beautiful counties ruined by the want of a proper scheme of town planning.
Anyone who cares for his country, and the proper housing of the people,
must feel the want of a proper central authority to deal with this problem. I I think the Minister of Health might very well make this concession with regard to town planning which covers what I regard as a most regrettable omission in the town planning Clause. It was so regrettable that I could not make up my mind whether I should or should not vote against the whole of the town planning Clauses. Therefore, I do not apologise for speaking at length on this subject, because it is one of great interest to London Members and to those who represent the Home Counties. I ask the Minister of Health to consider whether he cannot allow this permissive power for counties to combine for town planning, and bring in the County of London so that we can regulate the developments of our great City on reasonable and well-thought-out lines.

Mr. HARRIS: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is well acquainted with some of the difficulties of local government in London which we have had to face during the last ten years. In London it has been found necessary to provide housing estates outside the county, and sometimes partly inside and partly outside the county. As the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) knows from her experience, there have been immense delays in getting these schemes carried through, because of the hesitation of other counties in regard to co-operating with the larger County of London. In the ease of Becontree, development has been very much delayed, and sometimes even spoilt, by the jealousy and suspicion of the various local authorities. This proposal does not, of course, cover drainage schemes, but even now part of the development at Becontree has been held up by the unwillingness of the various local authorities to co-operate in regard to the drainage scheme.
The same thing has happened also between the County of London and the County of Kent. In connection with the Grove Park Estate, which is on the borders of London, being partly in London and partly in Bromley, Bent, there are all sorts of difficulties about passing roads, town planning, and the getting of a scheme that will really make the best use of the land and achieve its speedy development; and anything that is going to secure greater speed and greater co-
operation in this development on the outskirts of London will be all to the good. My hon. Friend is trying to help the Minister by a constructive suggestion, such as I should have thought he would welcome in his desire to make the Bill a success. The insertion of some words of this kind in this great Bill would assist local authorities to co-operate more in making housing estates and town planning really effective and satisfactory.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that the supporters of this Amendment quite appreciate that this Clause only deals with the general review by the counties of the districts within their areas. The proper place at which to consider the question of town planning, especially as between county councils and towns, was on Clause 33, but, unfortunately, the Opposition so frittered away and dissipated their time—[Interruption]—that it was impossible to reach Clause 33, and so they have done day after day. As a matter of fact, there was an Amendment to Clause 33 which dealt with London, and it was the intention of my right hon. Friend to consider the matter in that connection. It will now have to be dealt with on Report, when we shall give it further consideration. So far as this Clause is concerned, this is not a proper occasion on which to do it, nor is it germane to the particular matters with which the Clause is concerned.

Mr. E. BROWN: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not shown his usual courtesy, but at least he appears to realise that he has made a mistake. Clause 33 is one of the Clauses which went down in a bunch at Half-past Seven tonight. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may care to say about yesterday, when most of the discussion was taken part in by hon. Members above the Gangway, or about the day before, when most of the time was occupied by Members on these benches, to-day the bulk of the discussion has come, not from the Liberal or from the Labour Benches, but from the benches opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman, in saying that time has been frittered away, is, therefore, making the accusation that his own back-bench Members, who were quite entitled to raise valuable points, and all of whom made thoughtful suggestions without repetition, were wasting time.
The right hon. Gentleman has gone too far. The fact is that he realises that this Guillotine is utterly impossible for the full consideration of this Bill. My hon. Friends and I realised yesterday that this question could not be raised under the operation of the Guillotine, and, therefore, we ventured to put down this Amendment now. I still hold, despite the replies of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, that, when the re-arrangement of the districts is considered, these subjects ought to come up for consideration, because they have a great deal to do with what is the appropriate unit, which is the real root and heart of the problem in the planning of town growth and road development. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not charge us any more with wasting time, seeing that his own Members have taken up the great bulk of the time to-day.

Miss LAWRENCE: Arising out of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, I understand that the Minister is going to consider whether something can be done on Report, and I want to ask him whether he cannot consider doing a little more, and making it possible for county councils to combine for any purpose which they think fit and of which he approves. This is a very big question now. Many

Royal Commissions have recommended such a thing for the major services, and if that he done, it will effect a great improvement in the Bill, and will make possible certain services, such as the proper management of rivers, which are now entirely impossible.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As far as I understand -what the hon. Member asks, it is already covered by Section 81 of the Local Government Act, 1888, which provides that any county council or councils, and any Court or Courts of Quarter Sessions, may join in appointing, out of their respective bodies, a joint committee for any purpose in which they are interested, and the Section then goes on to lay down the manner in which the committee shall be set up.

Miss LAWRENCE: If the Minister will look at the Report of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage, he will see that it states that powers of extension and improvement and so on are needed before the service can become effective. The matter has been very carefully considered with regard to water, which is the biggest service of all.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 205.

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[10.3 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Longbottom, A. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, J. P.
Lowth, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William


Ammon, Charles George
Gillett, George M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W.


Baker, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
March, S.


Barnes, A.
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morris, R. H.


Bellamy, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mosley, Sir Oswald


Briant, Frank
Hardle, George D.
Murnin, H.


Broad, F. A.
Harris, Percy A,
Naylor, T. E.


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palin, John Henry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Charleton, H. C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Potts, John S.


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Connolly, M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robinson, W. C (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Kirkwood, D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dennison, R.
Lansbury, George
Srurr, John


Duncan, C
Lawrence, Susan
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwailty)
Lindley, F. W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Shinwell, E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)
Wiggins, William Martin


Sitch, Charles, H.
T hurtle, Ernest
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh Wrexham)


Slesser, Sir Henry H
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smillia, Robert
Tomlinson, R. P.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Stamford, T. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrowl


Stephen, Campbell
Watson, W. M. (Duntermllne)
Windsor, Walter


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wright, W.


Sullivan, J.
Wellock, Wilfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, J C.



Taylor, R. A.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. T. Kennedy and Major Owen.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Albery, Irving James
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Fraser, Captain Ian
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Apsley, Lord
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Astor, Viscountess
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ganzonl, Sir John
Pennefather, Sir John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gates, Percy
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perring, Sir William George


Barclay Harvey, CM.
Goff, Sir Park
Peto, Sir Basil E. [Devon, Barnstaple)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gower, Sir Robert
Pilcher, G.


Bennett, A. J
Grace, John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Berry, Sir George
Grant, Sir J. A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bethel, A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City ot London)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Radford, E. A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, Sir Walter


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hanbury, C.
Ramsdon, E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harland, A
Remer, J. R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennlngton)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Brittaln, Sir Harry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. sir James Rennell


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Buchan, John
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campbell, E. T.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Carver, Major w. H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cassels, J. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandon, Lord


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shepperson. E. W


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n,
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J,


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.


Christie, J. A.
Inskip, sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. Q. P.


Clarry, Reginald George
Iveagh, Countess of
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (stoke New'gton)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Colman, N. C. D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Tasker, R Inigo.


Cope, Major Sir William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lamb. J. Q.
Tinne. J. A.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. sir Philip
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Loder, J. de V.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Looker, Herbert William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Gainsbro)
Lougher, Lewis
Waddington, R.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wallace, Captain 0. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Huil)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, L. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lynn. Sir R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macintyre, Ian
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Phillip
Macmillan, Captain H,
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dixey, A. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Eden, Captain Anthony
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Edmondson. Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wells. S. R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Marriott. Sir J. A. R.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Womersley, w. J.




Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Wragg, Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.
Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.


Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Mr. SOMERVILLE.: I beg to move, in page 35, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
with particulars of any objections to the proposals that have been received by the county council.
This is to provide that, when the county council sends the Minister its proposals, it shall at the same time send him any objections that may be raised to them, so that at the earliest moment he may be in full possession of the case. It is true that by Sub-section (3) publicity is provided for, but the results of that publicity may not reach him for some time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press the Amendment. It really is undesirable that we should make the proceedings too complicated, and lay down in too great detail all the precautions that might be taken. I do not think any one can say the district councils that are affected will not have the most ample opportunity of making known to the Minister any objections there may be. Later on in the Paper I have an Amendment which directs the county council to send copies of its scheme to the councils of the several districts affected thereby, in addition to publishing the proposals in a newspaper. Then the district council has six weeks in which to make its objection to the Minister. The Minister has to consider the proposals and the representations that may be made to him, and if any objection in respect of any proposal is made by the local authority and not withdrawn, there has to be a local inquiry. With all this procedure, it is quite unnecessary to say that the county council shall send particulars of the objection to the Minister as well.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the Minister quite satisfied that this procedure would not be very much simpler than the one he has just indicated? In the case of the heads of objection being put before him, he would know at once what objections are being raised. The Clause is changing very much the conditions under which non-county boroughs particularly are going to be treated in
future. Under these circumstances it is very important indeed that all the objections to any proposal should be before him as soon as possible.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not understand that the proposal was put forward as an alternative to the proposal in the Bill. If it is, it is still more objectionable, because I am certain the county districts would much rather put their objections themselves to the Minister than have them put before him by the county council.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 35, line 21, at the end, to insert the words, "or any charter granted to it."
There is nothing a non-county borough prizes so much as a charter, and any interference with it would be most keenly felt. We recognise that we cannot usefully resist the proposals of Sub-section (2). They may interfere with the charters of the boroughs, but we hope the Minister will accept these words, implying that there will be no further interference with charters beyond what is necessary to carry out the proposals of the Subsection. That position, as far as the Bill is concerned, is safeguarded by the words "save as aforesaid" meaning that except in so far as the alteration of boundaries is concerned there will be no further interference with the Charter.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly was under the impression that Sub-section (2) as drafted entirely protected the Charter boroughs from any interference with their Charters, but I understand that there is some uneasiness on this matter. While I do not think that I can accept the Amendment which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville), yet if the Association of Municipal Corporations can put down a declaratory Clause at a later stage which would carry out the purpose they have in mind, I will give very favourable and sympathetic consideration to it.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask who are the Association of Muncipal Corporations? Will they be able to put down a Motion?

Mr. SOMERVIILE: Can such a Clause be added to the present Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be a new Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made:

In page 35, line 23, after the word "shall," insert the words
send copies thereof to the councils of the several districts affected thereby and shall.

In page 35, line 24, leave out the words "the county," and insert instead thereof the words "those districts."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to move, in page 35, line 26, to leave out the letter "a."
Under Sub-section (3) of this Clause a copy of the proposals of the council has to be open to inspection at a specific place. It is quite clear from the area, that these proposals may cover that they must inevitably in some cases refer to more than one district. The object of this Amendment and the next Amendment—in page 35, line 26, to leave out the word "place," and to insert instead thereof the words "places, one of which shall be situate in each of the districts affected by the proposals"—is to ensure that a copy of the proposals shall be deposited in each district affected. I submit to my right hon. Friend that it is hardly reasonable to ask the local authorities in one district to travel into another to inspect a copy of the proposals affecting both in common. In fact, in my Division I had an experience quite recently of that kind which led to some little difficulty as far as I was concerned, and which I was only able to get out of it by the kind assistance of the Department of my right hon. Friend. I venture to submit that it is desirable that copies should be placed in each particular district which is affected by the proposals. It would be much more convenient to have that done, it would entail less trouble and less time, than to have the various authorities travelling into another district to see what were the proposals.

Sir K. WOOD: When the Amendment first appeared on the Paper there was a good deal in what my hon. Friend has said, but inasmuch as every district is to receive a copy of the scheme, he will agree that it is unnecessary now to
deposit a copy in each particular district, because under the Amendment which we have just passed, which was proposed by my right hon. Friend, each district will be supplied with a copy. In these circumstances, my hon. Friend will agree that there is no reason actually to deposit the document.

Mr. LOOKER: Although what the right hon. Gentleman has said may well serve the purpose of the authorities concerned, the public ought to have access to a copy of the document at some place in the district.

Sir K. WOOD: In the case of the public, the matter is met much better by publication in a newspaper which circulates in the district. The public are far more likely to look at it in the newspaper than in some particular place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I beg to move, in page 35, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:
and if within four weeks after the making by the Minister of an order under this section objection is made thereto by the council of a borough to which the order relates and is not withdrawn the order of the Minister shall be provisional only and shall not have effect unless and until confirmed by Parliament.
This Amendment is one of very considerable importance, in our view. At the present time, as the law stands, no alteration can be made in the boundaries of a non-county borough without a Provisional Order being made and opportunity being afforded to the borough to appeal to Parliament, but as Clause 39 now stands, a great many rights pass away, and when. an Order has been made and laid on the 'Table of this House for 40 days, it will become law, and there will be no further appeal on the part of the non-county borough, a right which they have had in the past. The non-county boroughs feel very deeply about this matter and are very anxious to preserve their right of appeal to Parliament, if necessary. I would ask the Committee to note that under these proposals there appears to be nothing to prevent a county council and e, county borough dividing up—I am not suggesting that they are going to do it, but there is nothing to prevent them from doing it—a non-county borough area and parcelling it out in some new way, and the non-county borough would then,
as far as we can see, have no appeal to Parliament, a right which they have hitherto enjoyed for a very long time, and which is to pass from them altogether.
It appears to us that paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) contradict each other. In one case, apparently, there will be the right to divide the whole of a non-county borough into a new district, while in the other part it would appear that they can only take a portion of the district. That is a matter which will have to he made clear. We are anxious to preserve the right of the non-county boroughs to appeal to Parliament and we therefore suggest that if there are objections to the proposals made, the non-county boroughs should have the right of appealing to Parliament, if it is impossible to get agreement.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate that in this matter the Bill follows the recommendation of the Onslow Commission. The Onslow Commission recommended that on the first review the alteration of the boundaries of a non-county borough should be made without a Provisional Order, but on the second review, or reviews which may be made from time to time, the existing practice should be maintained. That is carried out in Clause 40 in the case of any subsequent review. What is the object of the Onslow Commission in making that distinction between the first review and the second. In my opinion it was this, that the first review is likely to be of a much more general character than any subsequent review. The first review has to take account of a state of things which may be said to have accumulated and which in all probability will require considerable alteration. It is quite clear that in making any general review the alteration of the boundaries of a non-county borough must necessarily involve the alteration of the boundaries of adjoining areas. Therefore, if this Provisional Order procedure is applied to the alteration of a non-county borough in the first review the result would be to hold up the proceedings and alterations for a considerable time. We want to avoid that hold up; and that I conceive to be the reason why the Onslow Commission made the distinction. My hon. and learned Friend may rest assured that it is not
desired to make this procedure permanent; it is merely temporary for the purposes of this Bill.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says as to the intention of the Onslow Commission, but is it not possible that the danger referred to may actually occur if the Bill remains as it is? Is it not possible for him to devise some words which will prevent the review being held up and also prevent any danger occurring?

Miss LAWRENCE: This is no doubt very interesting, but is not a very important point. Would the hon. and learned Member withdraw this Amendment and give us the three minutes that are left to consider all that the Clause does? So far the Clause has been discussed by hon. Members opposite. Could we not have the remaining few minutes?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I should be more than delighted to respond to the hon. Member's appeal but this Amendment is put down on behalf of a number of non-county boroughs who consider it of great importance. May I say that the hon. Lady and her party have not allowed hon. Members on this side much chance of discussing anything on this Bill.

Miss LAWRENCE: It is catch-as-catch-can. As a matter of fact, the Clause which is down at 7.30 usually gets a rational discussion, and it is a pure matter of luck—

The CHAIRMAN: It is an Order of the House.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman says, and for the benefit of the hon. Lady opposite, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:—

In page 36, line 1, after the word "Minister," insert the words:
either on the representation of a district council or otherwise and.

In page 36, line 7, leave out the word "county," and insert instead thereof the words "districts affected.' —[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Sir E. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 36, line 11, to leave out the words "six weeks," and to insert instead thereof the words "three months."

Sir K. WOOD: The Government cannot accept this Amendment. It was the subject of careful consideration, and I hope the hon. Member, in those circumstances, will not press it.

Amendment negatived.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 124.

Division No. 99.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrlngton)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Loder, J. de V.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Long, Major Eric


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Looker, Herbert William


Aniery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lougher, Lewis


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Apsley, Lord
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Astor, Viscountess
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lumley, L. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fenby, T. D.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fielden, E. B.
Maclntyre, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bennett, A. J.
Fremantle Lieut. Colonel Franels E.
Margesson, Captain D.


Berry, Sir George
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bethel, A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bevan, S. J.
Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)


Briggs, J. Harold
Grace, John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Briscoe, Richard George
Grant, Sir J. A.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Brittain. Sir Harry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexnam)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Ernest (Lelth)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon William


Buchan, John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Owen, Major G.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Pennefather, Sir John


Burman, J. B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Capt- W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perring, Sir William George


Campbell, E. T.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Carver, Major w. H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Pilcher, G.


Cassels, J. D.
Hanbury, C
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Radford, E. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ralne, Sir Walter


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivlan
Remer, J. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Christie, J. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hills, Major John Waller
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner, Major L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ruggles-Brlse, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hope, Capt. A. O. J (Warw'k, Nun.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Colman, N. C. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major Sir William
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sandon, Lord


Cowan, Sir Win. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Iveagh, Countess of
Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, E. W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith Louis, W (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. O.
Storry-Deans, R.


Dixey, A. C
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Warrender, Sir Victor
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Tasker, R Inigo.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Watts, Sir Thomas
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Tinne, J. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wells, S. R.
Wragg, Herbert


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wiggins, William Martin
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)



Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Waddington, R.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kinuston-on-Hull)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hllisbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sltch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bellamy, A.
Kennedy, T.
Smillle, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Briant, Frank
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ronnie (Penlstone)


Broad, F. A.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Longbottom, A. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Day, Harry
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edge, Sir William
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J P.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hall. G. H. (Marthyr Tydvll)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.
Whiteley.


Hayday. Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

It being after half-past Ten, of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be con-

cluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

CLAUSE 40.—(Subsequent periodical reviews.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 119.

Division No. 100.]
AYES.
[10.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Apsley, Lord
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Astor, Viscountess
Bennett, A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Berry, Sir George


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Balfour. George (Hampetaad)
Bethel, A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Balniel, Lord
Betterton, Henry B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Barclay-Harvey. C. M.
Bevan, S. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Griffith, F. Kinssley
Owen, Major G.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pennefather, Sir John


Briant, Frank
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perring, Sir William George


Briggs, J. Harold
Hacking, Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pilcher, G.


Brittaln, Sir Harry
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hammersley, S. S.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brown, Brig -Gen. H C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hanbury, C.
Radford, E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, Sir Walter


Buchan, John
Harland, A.
Ramsden, E.


Bullock, Captain M.
Harris, Percy A.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Remer, J. R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rentoul, G. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Carver, Major W. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cassels, J. D.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ropner, Major L.


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nan.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Christie, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd,, Whitch'n)
Savery, S. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hurd, Percy A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Colman, N. C. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shepperson. E. W.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cooper, A. Duff
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Somervllle, A. A. (Windsor)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Storry-Deans, R.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lamb, J. Q.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thomson, F. C (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder, J. de V.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dixey, A. C.
Long, Major Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eden, Captain Anthony
Looker, Herbert William
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Edge, Sir William
Lougher, Lewis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Waddington, R.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Macintyre, Ian
Warrender, Sir Victor


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Favarsham)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fenby, T. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wells, S. R.


Fielden, E. B,
Margesson, Captain D.
Wiggins, William Martin


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, A. M, (Cornwall, Northern)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Womersley, W. J.


Gates, Percy
Morris, R. H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Goff, Sir Park
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wragg, Herbert


Gower, Sir Robert
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Grace, John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)



Grant, Sir J. A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Major Sir William Cope and Mr.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ammon, Charles George
Baker, Walter




Barker, G. (Monmouth, Absrtillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bellamy, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Smillie, Robert


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Smith, Rennia (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Lee, F.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lindley, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Longbottom, A. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, J.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Han. J. R. (Aberavon)
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Day, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, J. P.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gibbing, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Welsh, J. C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardle, George D.
Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Nawton)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)



Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurjl
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Whiteley.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 41.—(Saving of powers under and Amendments of Section 57 of 51 and 52 Vict. c. 41.)

Amendment made:

In page 37, leave out from "1888," in line 3, to the word "but," in line 5.— [Mr. Chamberlain.]

CLAUSE 42.—(Adjustment of boundaries of counties and county boroughs.)

Amendments made:

In page 38, line 8, after the word "inquiry," insert the words:
except in cases where he is satisfied that an inquiry is unnecessary."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

In page 38, line 16, after the word "inquiry," insert the words:
except in cases where he is satisfied that an inquiry is unnecessary."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

CLAUSE 43.—(Borrowing and appropriation of land by county councils.)

Amendments made:

In page 38, line 23, leave out the words "which fixes," and insert instead thereof the words:
and sub-section (1) of Section one hundred and twelve of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which fix respectively.

In page 38, line 24, after "councils," to insert the words "and by councils of boroughs."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

CLAUSE 44.—(Provisions as to expenses of rural district councils.)

CLAUSE 45.—(Relations between county councils and county district councils in respect of public health functions.)

CLAUSE 46.—(Provisions as to medical officers of health.)

Amendment made:

In page 40, line 36, at end, insert the words "and every such council shall be at liberty to make representations thereon to the Minister."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

CLAUSE 47.—(Qualifications of certain medical officers and health visitors.)

CLAUSE 48.—(Maternity and child welfare services.)

Amendment made:

In page 41, line 34, leave out the word "effective," and insert instead thereof

the word "efficient."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

CLAUSE 49.—(Notification of births.)

CLAUSE 50.—(Supervision of midwives.)

Amendment made:

In page 42, line 26, leave out the words "satisfied that the," and insert instead thereof the words "after consultation with the county council he is satisfied that the district."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 118.

Division No. 101.]
AYES.
[10.53 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarry, Reginald George
Grace, John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grant, Sir J. A.


Albery, Irving James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Colman, N. C. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grotrian, H. Brent


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cooper, A. Duff
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Apsley, Lord
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Astor, Viscountess
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hacking, Douglas H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Balniel, Lord
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hammersley, S. S.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hanbury, C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bennett, A. J.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harland, A.


Berry, Sir George
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Harris, Percy A.


Bethel, A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harrison, G. J. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bevan, S. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Briant, Frank
Dixey, A. C.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Eden, Captain Anthony
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Briggs, J. Harold
Edge, Sir William
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Brittain, Sir Harry.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hills, Major John Waller


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hilton, Cecil


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Buchan, John
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Burman, J. B.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fenby, T. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Campbell, E. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Hunt, Percy A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Cassels, J. D.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Iveagh, Countess of


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gates, Percy
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Goff, Sir Park
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Knox, Sir Alfred


Lamb, J. Q.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Litter, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Perring, sir William George
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Plicher, G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Loder, J. de V.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Long, Major Eric
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Looker, Herbert William
Radford, E. A.
Tinne, J. A.


Lougher, Lewis
Raine, Sir Walter
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ramsden, E.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lumley, L. R.
Remer, J. R.
Vaughan-Morgan Col. K. P.


Lynn, Sir R. J
Rentoul, G. S.
Waddington, R.


MacIntyre Ian
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Ward, Lt.-Col A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ropner, Major L.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Margesson, Captain D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, S. R.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wiggins, William Martin


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandon, Lord
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Morris, R. H.
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Womersley, W. J.


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Newton, Sir D. G. C (Cambridge)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wragg, Herbert


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Ormsby-Gore, Ht. Hon. William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.



Owen, Major G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pennefather, Sir John
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Major Sir William Cope and Captain


Penny, Frederick George
Storry-Deans, R.
Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. P. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, E.


Bellamy, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cape, Thomas
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Longbottom, A. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Graham, O. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greniell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben



Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 51.—(Provision of hospital accommodation for infectious disease.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 119.

Division No. 102.]
AYES.
[11.3 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lumley, L. R.


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macintyre, Ian


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fenby, T. D.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Apsley, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.


Astor, Viscountess
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Baldwin, Rt. Hon Stanley
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Balniel, Lord
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Ganzoni, Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bennett, A. J.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bethel, A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris, R. H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bevan, S. J.
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grace, John
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Briant, Frank
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Briggs, J. Harold
Grotrian, H. Brent
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gunston, Captain D. W,
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Owen, Major G.


Brown, Col. O. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pennefather, Sir John


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Penny, Frederick George


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Buchan, John
Hammersley, S. S.
Perring, Sir William George


Bullock, Captain M.
Hanbury, C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Burman, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pllcher, G.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harland, A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Campbell, E. T.
Harris, Percy A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Carver, Major W. H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cassels, J. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Raine, Sir Walter


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Remer, J. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Henn, Sir Sydney H,
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hills, Major John Waller
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner, Major L.


Christie, J. A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynsmouth)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cope, Major Sir William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sandon, Lord


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Csn'l)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, E. W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Galnsbro)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunilffe, sir Herbert
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lamb, J. O.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lister, Cunllffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Starry-Deans, R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Edge, Sir William
Long, Major Eric
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lougher, Lewis
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Tinne, J. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Womersley, W. I.


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Watts, Sir Thomas
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Tomlinson, R. P.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge A Hyde)


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wells, S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wiggins, William Martin
Wragg, Herbert


Waddington, R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)



Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Warrender, Sir Victor
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Captain Bowyer and Captain


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Stan., Cannock)
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, w. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kennedy, T.
Smillie, Robert


Bellamy, A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Longbottom, A. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Harry
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. p.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gibblns, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Williams. T. (York. Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Haughton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)



Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 52.—(Power of London, County Council to transfer or delegate functions to metropolitan borough councils.)

Amendment made:

In page 44, line 37, leave out the word "all," and insert instead thereof the words "any of."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Clause 53 (Provisions as to orders, and extent of Part IV) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Eleven o'Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report, Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday, 22nd January, 1929.

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.

CLASS V. MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries
and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of Work-people within Great Britain and Oversea; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War.

CLASS VII.

ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.

CLASS IX.

GRANT-IN-AID OF THE LORD MAYOR'S FUND.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £155,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Grants-in-Aid of the Lord Mayor's Fund and towards the cost of Administration of the Fund and Co-ordination of other Funds for Relief in Distressed Mining Areas.

RELIEF IN DISTRESSED MINING AREAS IN SCOTLAND.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £20,625, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for a Grant-in-Aid of Relief in Distressed Mining Areas in Scotland.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, for the transfer of the undertaking autho-
rised by the Hindhead Electric Lighting Orders, 1902 and 1909, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 27th day of November, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Woodstock and the parish of Hensington Without, in the rural district of Woodstock, in the county of Oxford, which was presented on the 29th day of November, 1928, be approved."—[Viscount Curzon.]

INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message of 17th December as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Indian Affairs be now considered."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Eleven Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords as a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Brigadier-General Charteris, Sir Robert Hamilton, Colonel Howard-Bury, Sir Alfred Knox, Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir Frank Nelson, Mr. Geoffrey Peto, Mr. Filcher, Mr. Scurr, Mr. Snell, and Mr. Wallhead nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Five be the quorum."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes after Eleven o'Clock.